In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ceph: fix leaked inode reference on writeback abort at umount
ceph_dirty_folio() takes a wrbuffer claim on each newly dirtied folio: it
bumps i_wrbuffer_ref (taking an ihold() on the 0->1 transition) and
attaches the snap_context to folio->private. That claim is released only
by ceph_put_wrbuffer_cap_refs(), which for a submitted write runs from
writepages_finish().
In ceph_submit_write(), if ceph_inc_osd_stopping_blocker() fails -- which
happens during umount -- the request is aborted before submission: the
already-collected folios are only redirtied and unlocked, so
writepages_finish() never runs and the claim is leaked.
redirty_page_for_writepage() -> folio_redirty_for_writepage() ->
filemap_dirty_folio() sets PG_dirty directly and does not go through
->dirty_folio, so ceph_dirty_folio() is not re-entered to rebalance it.
Because every subsequent writeback also fails the osd_stopping_blocker,
i_wrbuffer_ref never returns to 0, the ihold() is never dropped, and the
inode cannot be evicted:
VFS: Busy inodes after unmount of ceph
kernel BUG at fs/super.c:650!
Release the orphaned claim in the abort path before redirtying, via
ceph_undo_wrbuffer_claim(): detach the snap_context, drop the wrbuffer
reference (letting i_wrbuffer_ref reach 0 and iput() the inode), and drop
the snap_context reference -- i.e. do what writepages_finish() would have
done for these never-submitted folios.
Only the locked_pages entries are undone; folios still in the fbatch were
never dirty-cleared by this call (folio_clear_dirty_for_io() is the
ownership-transfer point, and a successful move NULLs the fbatch slot), so
they hold no claim this call owns.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from Vulnrichment. EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table
BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). Where an input reads “CISA's BOD 26-04 default”, no one has published it for this CVE, and CISA's implementation guidance says: “If “Automatable” and “Technical Impact” information items about a CVE ID are not available and the CVE ID is not in the KEV Catalog, CISA will treat its values as “no” and “total,” respectively, until CISA or a third party provides metadata about the CVE ID. CISA will always provide the Vulnrichment data for a CVE ID listed in the KEV Catalog.” Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it