https://vulnerability.circl.lu Contains only the most 10 recent entries. http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification python-feedgen en Tue, 29 Sep 2026 01:09:43 +0000 https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/cve-2025-68358 <p><strong>Affected:</strong> Linux</p> <p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:</p> <p>btrfs: fix racy bitfield write in btrfs_clear_space_info_full()</p> <p>From the memory-barriers.txt document regarding memory barrier ordering guarantees:</p> <p>(*) These guarantees do not apply to bitfields, because compilers often generate code to modify these using non-atomic read-modify-write sequences. Do not attempt to use bitfields to synchronize parallel algorithms.</p> <p>(*) Even in cases where bitfields are protected by locks, all fields in a given bitfield must be protected by one lock. If two fields in a given bitfield are protected by different locks, the compiler&#39;s non-atomic read-modify-write sequences can cause an update to one field to corrupt the value of an adjacent field.</p> <p>btrfs_space_info has a bitfield sharing an underlying word consisting of the fields full, chunk_alloc, and flush:</p> <p>struct btrfs_space_info { struct btrfs_fs_info * fs_info; /* 0 8 */ struct btrfs_space_info * parent; /* 8 8 */ ... int clamp; /* 172 4 */ unsigned int full:1; /* 176: 0 4 */ unsigned int chunk_alloc:1; /* 176: 1 4 */ unsigned int flush:1; /* 176: 2 4 */ ...</p> <p>Therefore, to be safe from parallel read-modify-writes losing a write to one of the bitfi…</p> <p><strong>Affected:</strong> Linux</p> <p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:</p> <p>btrfs: fix racy bitfield write in btrfs_clear_space_info_full()</p> <p>From the memory-barriers.txt document regarding memory barrier ordering guarantees:</p> <p>(*) These guarantees do not apply to bitfields, because compilers often generate code to modify these using non-atomic read-modify-write sequences. Do not attempt to use bitfields to synchronize parallel algorithms.</p> <p>(*) Even in cases where bitfields are protected by locks, all fields in a given bitfield must be protected by one lock. If two fields in a given bitfield are protected by different locks, the compiler&#39;s non-atomic read-modify-write sequences can cause an update to one field to corrupt the value of an adjacent field.</p> <p>btrfs_space_info has a bitfield sharing an underlying word consisting of the fields full, chunk_alloc, and flush:</p> <p>struct btrfs_space_info { struct btrfs_fs_info * fs_info; /* 0 8 */ struct btrfs_space_info * parent; /* 8 8 */ ... int clamp; /* 172 4 */ unsigned int full:1; /* 176: 0 4 */ unsigned int chunk_alloc:1; /* 176: 1 4 */ unsigned int flush:1; /* 176: 2 4 */ ...</p> <p>Therefore, to be safe from parallel read-modify-writes losing a write to one of the bitfi…</p> https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/cve-2025-68358