Answer in brief
CVE-2024-47679 records a Unknown severity vulnerability in vfs: fix race between evice_inodes() and find_inode()&iput(). The current sources do not mark it as known exploited. The current feed maps Linux/Linux (generic), Linux/Linux (generic). Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.
Analysis pending evidence review
HOL Guard separates source facts from reviewed analysis. See the methodology.
Answer in brief
CVE-2024-47679 records a Unknown severity vulnerability in vfs: fix race between evice_inodes() and find_inode()&iput(). The current sources do not mark it as known exploited. The current feed maps Linux/Linux (generic), Linux/Linux (generic). Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.
Analysis pending evidence review
HOL Guard separates source facts from reviewed analysis. See the methodology.
A CVSS score is not reported in the current record. The current sources do not mark it as known exploited. Treat this as a source-backed prioritization signal, not a statement about your environment.
Analysis status
Analysis pending evidence review
Factual feed record only; HOL analysis is not approved for indexing. Read the methodology.
The current feed maps Linux/Linux (generic), Linux/Linux (generic). Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.
| Package | Affected range | Fixed version |
|---|---|---|
| Linux/Linuxgeneric | >=63997e98a3be68d7cec806d22bf9b02b2e1daabb <6cc13a80a26e6b48f78c725c01b91987d61563ef || >=63997e98a3be68d7cec806d22bf9b02b2e1daabb <489faddb1ae75b0e1a741fe5ca2542a2b5e794a5 || >=63997e98a3be68d7cec806d22bf9b02b2e1daabb <47a68c75052a660e4c37de41e321582ec9496195 || >=63997e98a3be68d7cec806d22bf9b02b2e1daabb <3721a69403291e2514d13a7c3af50a006ea1153b || >=63997e98a3be68d7cec806d22bf9b02b2e1daabb <540fb13120c9eab3ef203f90c00c8e69f37449d1 || >=63997e98a3be68d7cec806d22bf9b02b2e1daabb <0eed942bc65de1f93eca7bda51344290f9c573bb || >=63997e98a3be68d7cec806d22bf9b02b2e1daabb <0f8a5b6d0dafa4f533ac82e98f8b812073a7c9d1 || >=63997e98a3be68d7cec806d22bf9b02b2e1daabb <6c857fb12b9137fee574443385d53914356bbe11 || >=63997e98a3be68d7cec806d22bf9b02b2e1daabb <88b1afbf0f6b221f6c5bb66cc80cd3b38d696687 | 6cc13a80a26e6b48f78c725c01b91987d61563ef, 489faddb1ae75b0e1a741fe5ca2542a2b5e794a5, 47a68c75052a660e4c37de41e321582ec9496195, 3721a69403291e2514d13a7c3af50a006ea1153b, 540fb13120c9eab3ef203f90c00c8e69f37449d1, 0eed942bc65de1f93eca7bda51344290f9c573bb, 0f8a5b6d0dafa4f533ac82e98f8b812073a7c9d1, 6c857fb12b9137fee574443385d53914356bbe11, 88b1afbf0f6b221f6c5bb66cc80cd3b38d696687 |
| Linux/Linuxgeneric | 2.6.37 | Not reported |
Published upstream
Oct 21, 2024
Evidence: source:cvelist:source_dates:source-dates:recordSource modified
Aug 5, 2026
Evidence: source:cvelist:source_dates:source-dates:recordFirst seen by HOL
Aug 5, 2026
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: vfs: fix race between evice_inodes() and find_inode()&iput() Hi, all Recently I noticed a bug[1] in btrfs, after digged it into and I believe it'a race in vfs. Let's assume there's a inode (ie ino 261) with i_count 1 is called by iput(), and there's a concurrent thread calling generic_shutdown_super(). cpu0: cpu1: iput() // i_count is 1 ->spin_lock(inode) ->dec i_count to 0 ->iput_final() generic_shutdown_super() ->__inode_add_lru() ->evict_inodes() // cause some reason[2] ->if (atomic_read(inode->i_count)) continue; // return before // inode 261 passed the above check // list_lru_add_obj() // and then schedule out ->spin_unlock() // note here: the inode 261 // was still at sb list and hash list, // and I_FREEING|I_WILL_FREE was not been set btrfs_iget() // after some function calls ->find_inode() // found the above inode 261 ->spin_lock(inode) // check I_FREEING|I_WILL_FREE // and passed ->__iget() ->spin_unlock(inode) // schedule back ->spin_lock(inode) // check (I_NEW|I_FREEING|I_WILL_FREE) flags, // passed and set I_FREEING iput() ->spin_unlock(inode) ->spin_lock(inode) ->evict() // dec i_count to 0 ->iput_final() ->spin_unlock() ->evict() Now, we have two threads simultaneously evicting the same inode, which may trigger the BUG(inode->i_state & I_CLEAR) statement both within clear_inode() and iput(). To fix the bug, recheck the inode->i_count after holding i_lock. Because in the most scenarios, the first check is valid, and the overhead of spin_lock() can be reduced. If there is any misunderstanding, please let me know, thanks. [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/[email protected]/ [2]: The reason might be 1. SB_ACTIVE was removed or 2. mapping_shrinkable() return false when I reproduced the bug.
Quoted source text, attributed separately from HOL analysis.
A CVSS score is not reported in the current record. The current sources do not mark it as known exploited. Treat this as a source-backed prioritization signal, not a statement about your environment.
Analysis status
Analysis pending evidence review
Factual feed record only; HOL analysis is not approved for indexing. Read the methodology.
The current feed maps Linux/Linux (generic), Linux/Linux (generic). Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.
| Package | Affected range | Fixed version |
|---|---|---|
| Linux/Linuxgeneric | >=63997e98a3be68d7cec806d22bf9b02b2e1daabb <6cc13a80a26e6b48f78c725c01b91987d61563ef || >=63997e98a3be68d7cec806d22bf9b02b2e1daabb <489faddb1ae75b0e1a741fe5ca2542a2b5e794a5 || >=63997e98a3be68d7cec806d22bf9b02b2e1daabb <47a68c75052a660e4c37de41e321582ec9496195 || >=63997e98a3be68d7cec806d22bf9b02b2e1daabb <3721a69403291e2514d13a7c3af50a006ea1153b || >=63997e98a3be68d7cec806d22bf9b02b2e1daabb <540fb13120c9eab3ef203f90c00c8e69f37449d1 || >=63997e98a3be68d7cec806d22bf9b02b2e1daabb <0eed942bc65de1f93eca7bda51344290f9c573bb || >=63997e98a3be68d7cec806d22bf9b02b2e1daabb <0f8a5b6d0dafa4f533ac82e98f8b812073a7c9d1 || >=63997e98a3be68d7cec806d22bf9b02b2e1daabb <6c857fb12b9137fee574443385d53914356bbe11 || >=63997e98a3be68d7cec806d22bf9b02b2e1daabb <88b1afbf0f6b221f6c5bb66cc80cd3b38d696687 | 6cc13a80a26e6b48f78c725c01b91987d61563ef, 489faddb1ae75b0e1a741fe5ca2542a2b5e794a5, 47a68c75052a660e4c37de41e321582ec9496195, 3721a69403291e2514d13a7c3af50a006ea1153b, 540fb13120c9eab3ef203f90c00c8e69f37449d1, 0eed942bc65de1f93eca7bda51344290f9c573bb, 0f8a5b6d0dafa4f533ac82e98f8b812073a7c9d1, 6c857fb12b9137fee574443385d53914356bbe11, 88b1afbf0f6b221f6c5bb66cc80cd3b38d696687 |
| Linux/Linuxgeneric | 2.6.37 | Not reported |
Published upstream
Oct 21, 2024
Evidence: source:cvelist:source_dates:source-dates:recordSource modified
Aug 5, 2026
Evidence: source:cvelist:source_dates:source-dates:recordFirst seen by HOL
Aug 5, 2026
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: vfs: fix race between evice_inodes() and find_inode()&iput() Hi, all Recently I noticed a bug[1] in btrfs, after digged it into and I believe it'a race in vfs. Let's assume there's a inode (ie ino 261) with i_count 1 is called by iput(), and there's a concurrent thread calling generic_shutdown_super(). cpu0: cpu1: iput() // i_count is 1 ->spin_lock(inode) ->dec i_count to 0 ->iput_final() generic_shutdown_super() ->__inode_add_lru() ->evict_inodes() // cause some reason[2] ->if (atomic_read(inode->i_count)) continue; // return before // inode 261 passed the above check // list_lru_add_obj() // and then schedule out ->spin_unlock() // note here: the inode 261 // was still at sb list and hash list, // and I_FREEING|I_WILL_FREE was not been set btrfs_iget() // after some function calls ->find_inode() // found the above inode 261 ->spin_lock(inode) // check I_FREEING|I_WILL_FREE // and passed ->__iget() ->spin_unlock(inode) // schedule back ->spin_lock(inode) // check (I_NEW|I_FREEING|I_WILL_FREE) flags, // passed and set I_FREEING iput() ->spin_unlock(inode) ->spin_lock(inode) ->evict() // dec i_count to 0 ->iput_final() ->spin_unlock() ->evict() Now, we have two threads simultaneously evicting the same inode, which may trigger the BUG(inode->i_state & I_CLEAR) statement both within clear_inode() and iput(). To fix the bug, recheck the inode->i_count after holding i_lock. Because in the most scenarios, the first check is valid, and the overhead of spin_lock() can be reduced. If there is any misunderstanding, please let me know, thanks. [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/[email protected]/ [2]: The reason might be 1. SB_ACTIVE was removed or 2. mapping_shrinkable() return false when I reproduced the bug.
Quoted source text, attributed separately from HOL analysis.