CVE-2025-68774In 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 h…
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: 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.
- CVSS
- 7.5 HIGH (v3.1, NVD)CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
- 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
- Jul 30, 2026
- First seen by InfoSec Signals
- Oct 9, 2026
Affected products
No affected products are listed yet.
References
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/152af114287851583cf7e0abc10129941f19466a
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/39e149d58ef4d7883cbf87448d39d51292fd342d
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/3b0fc7af50b896d0f3d104e70787ba1973bc0b56
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/457f795e7abd7770de10216d7f9994a3f12a56d6
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/5882e7c8cdbb5e254a69628b780acff89c78071e
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/b68dc4134b18a3922cd33439ec614aad4172bc86
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/b9d1c6bb5f19460074ce9862cb80be86b5fb0a50
The CVE record on cve.org NVD's entry
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.