In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
hfsplus: fix missing hfs_bnode_get() in __hfs_bnode_create
When sync() and link() are called concurrently, both threads may
enter hfs_bnode_find() without finding the node in the hash table
and proceed to create it.
Thread A:
hfsplus_write_inode()
-> hfsplus_write_system_inode()
-> hfs_btree_write()
-> hfs_bnode_find(tree, 0)
-> __hfs_bnode_create(tree, 0)
Thread B:
hfsplus_create_cat()
-> hfs_brec_insert()
-> hfs_bnode_split()
-> hfs_bmap_alloc()
-> hfs_bnode_find(tree, 0)
-> __hfs_bnode_create(tree, 0)
In this case, thread A creates the bnode, sets refcnt=1, and hashes it.
Thread B also tries to create the same bnode, notices it has already
been inserted, drops its own instance, and uses the hashed one without
getting the node.
```
node2 = hfs_bnode_findhash(tree, cnid);
if (!node2) { <- Thread A
hash = hfs_bnode_hash(cnid);
node->next_hash = tree->node_hash[hash];
tree->node_hash[hash] = node;
tree->node_hash_cnt++;
} else { <- Thread B
spin_unlock(&tree->hash_lock);
kfree(node);
wait_event(node2->lock_wq,
!test_bit(HFS_BNODE_NEW, &node2->flags));
return node2;
}
```
However, hfs_bnode_find() requires each call to take a reference.
Here both threads end up setting refcnt=1. When they later put the node,
this triggers:
BUG_ON(!atomic_read(&node->refcnt))
In this scenario, Thread B in fact finds the node in the hash table
rather than creating a new one, and thus must take a reference.
Fix this by calling hfs_bnode_get() when reusing a bnode newly created by
another thread to ensure the refcount is updated correctly.
A similar bug was fixed in HFS long ago in commit
a9dc087fd3c4 ("fix missing hfs_bnode_get() in __hfs_bnode_create")
but the same issue remained in HFS+ until now.
hfsplus: fix missing hfs_bnode_get() in __hfs_bnode_create
When sync() and link() are called concurrently, both threads may
enter hfs_bnode_find() without finding the node in the hash table
and proceed to create it.
Thread A:
hfsplus_write_inode()
-> hfsplus_write_system_inode()
-> hfs_btree_write()
-> hfs_bnode_find(tree, 0)
-> __hfs_bnode_create(tree, 0)
Thread B:
hfsplus_create_cat()
-> hfs_brec_insert()
-> hfs_bnode_split()
-> hfs_bmap_alloc()
-> hfs_bnode_find(tree, 0)
-> __hfs_bnode_create(tree, 0)
In this case, thread A creates the bnode, sets refcnt=1, and hashes it.
Thread B also tries to create the same bnode, notices it has already
been inserted, drops its own instance, and uses the hashed one without
getting the node.
```
node2 = hfs_bnode_findhash(tree, cnid);
if (!node2) { <- Thread A
hash = hfs_bnode_hash(cnid);
node->next_hash = tree->node_hash[hash];
tree->node_hash[hash] = node;
tree->node_hash_cnt++;
} else { <- Thread B
spin_unlock(&tree->hash_lock);
kfree(node);
wait_event(node2->lock_wq,
!test_bit(HFS_BNODE_NEW, &node2->flags));
return node2;
}
```
However, hfs_bnode_find() requires each call to take a reference.
Here both threads end up setting refcnt=1. When they later put the node,
this triggers:
BUG_ON(!atomic_read(&node->refcnt))
In this scenario, Thread B in fact finds the node in the hash table
rather than creating a new one, and thus must take a reference.
Fix this by calling hfs_bnode_get() when reusing a bnode newly created by
another thread to ensure the refcount is updated correctly.
A similar bug was fixed in HFS long ago in commit
a9dc087fd3c4 ("fix missing hfs_bnode_get() in __hfs_bnode_create")
but the same issue remained in HFS+ until now.
Metrics
Affected Vendors & Products
Advisories
No advisories yet.
Fixes
Solution
No solution given by the vendor.
Workaround
No workaround given by the vendor.
References
History
Tue, 13 Jan 2026 15:45:00 +0000
| Type | Values Removed | Values Added |
|---|---|---|
| Description | In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: hfsplus: fix missing hfs_bnode_get() in __hfs_bnode_create When sync() and link() are called concurrently, both threads may enter hfs_bnode_find() without finding the node in the hash table and proceed to create it. Thread A: hfsplus_write_inode() -> hfsplus_write_system_inode() -> hfs_btree_write() -> hfs_bnode_find(tree, 0) -> __hfs_bnode_create(tree, 0) Thread B: hfsplus_create_cat() -> hfs_brec_insert() -> hfs_bnode_split() -> hfs_bmap_alloc() -> hfs_bnode_find(tree, 0) -> __hfs_bnode_create(tree, 0) In this case, thread A creates the bnode, sets refcnt=1, and hashes it. Thread B also tries to create the same bnode, notices it has already been inserted, drops its own instance, and uses the hashed one without getting the node. ``` node2 = hfs_bnode_findhash(tree, cnid); if (!node2) { <- Thread A hash = hfs_bnode_hash(cnid); node->next_hash = tree->node_hash[hash]; tree->node_hash[hash] = node; tree->node_hash_cnt++; } else { <- Thread B spin_unlock(&tree->hash_lock); kfree(node); wait_event(node2->lock_wq, !test_bit(HFS_BNODE_NEW, &node2->flags)); return node2; } ``` However, hfs_bnode_find() requires each call to take a reference. Here both threads end up setting refcnt=1. When they later put the node, this triggers: BUG_ON(!atomic_read(&node->refcnt)) In this scenario, Thread B in fact finds the node in the hash table rather than creating a new one, and thus must take a reference. Fix this by calling hfs_bnode_get() when reusing a bnode newly created by another thread to ensure the refcount is updated correctly. A similar bug was fixed in HFS long ago in commit a9dc087fd3c4 ("fix missing hfs_bnode_get() in __hfs_bnode_create") but the same issue remained in HFS+ until now. | |
| Title | hfsplus: fix missing hfs_bnode_get() in __hfs_bnode_create | |
| First Time appeared |
Linux
Linux linux Kernel |
|
| CPEs | cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:* | |
| Vendors & Products |
Linux
Linux linux Kernel |
|
| References |
|
|
Projects
Sign in to view the affected projects.
MITRE
Status: PUBLISHED
Assigner: Linux
Published:
Updated: 2026-01-13T15:28:51.379Z
Reserved: 2025-12-24T10:30:51.035Z
Link: CVE-2025-68774
Vulnrichment
No data.
NVD
Status : Received
Published: 2026-01-13T16:15:56.960
Modified: 2026-01-13T16:15:56.960
Link: CVE-2025-68774
Redhat
No data.
OpenCVE Enrichment
No data.
Weaknesses
No weakness.