Back to CVE records
Not yet scoredPublished Dec 4, 2025

CVE-2025-40220In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: fuse: fix livelock in synchronous file put from fuseblk workers I observed a hang when running generic/323 against a fuseblk server.

Updated under an hour ago ()

Does this affect you?

It lists no affected products yet. Add what you run and Signals checks it as products are added.

No exploitation reported and no EPSS estimate yet.

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: fuse: fix livelock in synchronous file put from fuseblk workers I observed a hang when running generic/323 against a fuseblk server. This test opens a file, initiates a lot of AIO writes to that file descriptor, and closes the file descriptor before the writes complete. Unsurprisingly, the AIO exerciser threads are mostly stuck waiting for responses from the fuseblk server: # cat /proc/372265/task/372313/stack [<0>] request_wait_answer+0x1fe/0x2a0 [fuse] [<0>] __fuse_simple_request+0xd3/0x2b0 [fuse] [<0>] fuse_do_getattr+0xfc/0x1f0 [fuse] [<0>] fuse_file_read_iter+0xbe/0x1c0 [fuse] [<0>] aio_read+0x130/0x1e0 [<0>] io_submit_one+0x542/0x860 [<0>] __x64_sys_io_submit+0x98/0x1a0 [<0>] do_syscall_64+0x37/0xf0 [<0>] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x4b/0x53 But the /weird/ part is that the fuseblk server threads are waiting for responses from itself: # cat /proc/372210/task/372232/stack [<0>] request_wait_answer+0x1fe/0x2a0 [fuse] [<0>] __fuse_simple_request+0xd3/0x2b0 [fuse] [<0>] fuse_file_put+0x9a/0xd0 [fuse] [<0>] fuse_release+0x36/0x50 [fuse] [<0>] __fput+0xec/0x2b0 [<0>] task_work_run+0x55/0x90 [<0>] syscall_exit_to_user_mode+0xe9/0x100 [<0>] do_syscall_64+0x43/0xf0 [<0>] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x4b/0x53 The fuseblk server is fuse2fs so there's nothing all that exciting in the server itself. So why is the fuse server calling fuse_file_put? The commit message for the fstest sheds some light on that: "By closing the file descriptor before calling io_destroy, you pretty much guarantee that the last put on the ioctx will be done in interrupt context (during I/O completion). Aha. AIO fgets a new struct file from the fd when it queues the ioctx. The completion of the FUSE_WRITE command from userspace causes the fuse server to call the AIO completion function. The completion puts the struct file, queuing a delayed fput to the fuse server task. When the fuse server task returns to userspace, it has to run the delayed fput, which in the case of a fuseblk server, it does synchronously. Sending the FUSE_RELEASE command sychronously from fuse server threads is a bad idea because a client program can initiate enough simultaneous AIOs such that all the fuse server threads end up in delayed_fput, and now there aren't any threads left to handle the queued fuse commands. Fix this by only using asynchronous fputs when closing files, and leave a comment explaining why.

CVSS
Not yet scored
Weakness (CWE)
Not given
Known exploited
Not in CISA's KEV catalog
EPSS (exploitation in the next 30 days)
Not loaded for this CVE
Assigned by
Not given
NVD analysis
Deferred
Record last updated
Jun 17, 2026
First seen by InfoSec Signals
Oct 9, 2026

Affected products

No affected products are listed yet.

References

The CVE record is authoritative. Products marked “from the name” were identified from the CNA's free-text names, not a CPE, and are matched less certainly. This product uses the NVD API but is not endorsed or certified by the NVD.

Your cookie choices
We use essential cookies to run this site, and, only with your consent, an advertising cookie from Google to measure whether our ads lead to sign-ups and subscriptions. See our for details.