# CVE-2025-68358: btrfs: fix racy bitfield write in btrfs_clear_space_info_full() > A race condition in the Linux kernel's Btrfs filesystem allows concurrent writes to corrupt bitfield data, potentially causing data corruption or system crashes. - **Severity:** Medium 5.5 (`CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H`) - **Exploited in the wild:** Not known - **Login needed:** Any signed-in user - **Attackable:** Local or same network only - **Victim action needed:** Not needed - **Fix available:** Yes - **Published:** 24 Dec 2025 - **Updated:** 11 May 2026 - **Also known as:** AZL-73126, AZL-78407, BELL-CVE-2025-68358, DEBIAN-CVE-2025-68358, GHSA-2m44-r2x5-4q79, ROOT-OS-DEBIAN-11-CVE-2025-68358, ROOT-OS-DEBIAN-12-CVE-2025-68358, ROOT-OS-DEBIAN-13-CVE-2025-68358, ROOT-OS-UBUNTU-2204-CVE-2025-68358, ROOT-OS-UBUNTU-2404-CVE-2025-68358, UBUNTU-CVE-2025-68358 ## What is CVE-2025-68358? CVE-2025-68358 is a medium-severity vulnerability in Linux kernel, published on 24 Dec 2025. It can only be exploited from the same machine or local network, with no action from the victim. ### Official description In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: btrfs: fix racy bitfield write in btrfs_clear_space_info_full() From the memory-barriers.txt document regarding memory barrier ordering guarantees: (*) 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. (*) 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's non-atomic read-modify-write sequences can cause an update to one field to corrupt the value of an adjacent field. btrfs_space_info has a bitfield sharing an underlying word consisting of the fields full, chunk_alloc, and flush: 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 */ ... Therefore, to be safe from parallel read-modify-writes losing a write to one of the bitfield members protected by a lock, all writes to all the bitfields must use the lock. They almost universally do, except for btrfs_clear_space_info_full() which iterates over the space_infos and writes out found->full = 0 without a lock. Imagine that we have one thread completing a transaction in which we finished deleting a block_group and are thus calling btrfs_clear_space_info_full() while simultaneously the data reclaim ticket infrastructure is running do_async_reclaim_data_space(): T1 T2 btrfs_commit_transaction btrfs_clear_space_info_full data_sinfo->full = 0 READ: full:0, chunk_alloc:0, flush:1 do_async_reclaim_data_space(data_sinfo) spin_lock(&space_info->lock); if(list_empty(tickets)) space_info->flush = 0; READ: full: 0, chunk_alloc:0, flush:1 MOD/WRITE: full: 0, chunk_alloc:0, flush:0 spin_unlock(&space_info->lock); return; MOD/WRITE: full:0, chunk_alloc:0, flush:1 and now data_sinfo->flush is 1 but the reclaim worker has exited. This breaks the invariant that flush is 0 iff there is no work queued or running. Once this invariant is violated, future allocations that go into __reserve_bytes() will add tickets to space_info->tickets but will see space_info->flush is set to 1 and not queue the work. After this, they will block forever on the resulting ticket, as it is now impossible to kick the worker again. I also confirmed by looking at the assembly of the affected kernel that it is doing RMW operations. For example, to set the flush (3rd) bit to 0, the assembly is: andb $0xfb,0x60(%rbx) and similarly for setting the full (1st) bit to 0: andb $0xfe,-0x20(%rax) So I think this is really a bug on practical systems. I have observed a number of systems in this exact state, but am currently unable to reproduce it. Rather than leaving this footgun lying around for the future, take advantage of the fact that there is room in the struct anyway, and that it is already quite large and simply change the three bitfield members to bools. This avoids writes to space_info->full having any effect on ---truncated--- ## Which versions are affected by CVE-2025-68358? It affects 1 product. Products: Linux kernel. ## How do I fix CVE-2025-68358? Apply the vendor's patch. ## Is CVE-2025-68358 being exploited? There is no known exploitation of CVE-2025-68358 in the wild and no public exploit code. ## Other vulnerabilities in Linux kernel - [CVE-2026-53266](https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2026-53266/): Linux Kernel Out-of-Bounds Write (high 8.8, exploited in the wild) - [CVE-2013-6282](https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2013-6282/): Linux Kernel Improper Input Validation (high 8.8, exploited in the wild) - [CVE-2022-0185](https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2022-0185/): Linux Kernel Heap-Based Buffer Overflow (high 8.4, exploited in the wild) - [CVE-2013-2094](https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2013-2094/): Linux Kernel Privilege Escalation (high 8.4, exploited in the wild) - [CVE-2026-53362](https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2026-53362/): Linux Kernel Unspecified (high 7.8, exploited in the wild) ## Fix prompt for AI coding agents ```text Check this codebase for CVE-2025-68358 and fix it if it is affected. What it is: CVE-2025-68358 is a medium-severity vulnerability in Linux kernel, published on 24 Dec 2025. It can only be exploited from the same machine or local network, with no action from the victim. Exploitation: There is no known exploitation of CVE-2025-68358 in the wild and no public exploit code. Affected product: Linux kernel. No package-level version data is available, so check the vendor advisory linked from the reference page. Task: 1. Search the dependency manifests and lockfiles (for example package.json, package-lock.json, requirements.txt, poetry.lock, uv.lock, pom.xml, build.gradle, go.mod, Cargo.lock, Gemfile.lock) and any Dockerfiles for the affected packages, including transitive dependencies. 2. If an affected version is in use, upgrade it to the fixed version for its release line with the project's package manager, so the lockfile is regenerated. Prefer the smallest upgrade that fixes it. 3. If there is no fix, or the upgrade would break the build, do not guess: explain the risk and the safest workaround instead. 4. Run the tests and summarise what changed and why. 5. If nothing in the project is affected, say so and change nothing. Reference: https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2025-68358/ (Markdown: https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2025-68358/index.md) ``` ## Sources - CVE record: https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-68358 - NVD: https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-68358 - OSV: https://osv.dev/vulnerability/CVE-2025-68358 --- From sbomify Insights: https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2025-68358/ Summaries are generated and may contain mistakes; the official description above is the record.