drbd
by Linux
CVEs (2)
| CVE | Vendor / Product | Sev | Risk | CVSS | EPSS | KEV | Published | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2025-38708 | Hig | 0.51 | 7.8 | 0.00 | Sep 4, 2025 | In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: drbd: add missing kref_get in handle_write_conflicts With `two-primaries` enabled, DRBD tries to detect "concurrent" writes and handle write conflicts, so that even if you write to the same sector simultaneously on both nodes, they end up with the identical data once the writes are completed. In handling "superseeded" writes, we forgot a kref_get, resulting in a premature drbd_destroy_device and use after free, and further to kernel crashes with symptoms. Relevance: No one should use DRBD as a random data generator, and apparently all users of "two-primaries" handle concurrent writes correctly on layer up. That is cluster file systems use some distributed lock manager, and live migration in virtualization environments stops writes on one node before starting writes on the other node. Which means that other than for "test cases", this code path is never taken in real life. FYI, in DRBD 9, things are handled differently nowadays. We still detect "write conflicts", but no longer try to be smart about them. We decided to disconnect hard instead: upper layers must not submit concurrent writes. If they do, that's their fault. | ||
| CVE-2026-23356 | Med | 0.36 | 5.5 | 0.00 | Mar 25, 2026 | In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: drbd: fix "LOGIC BUG" in drbd_al_begin_io_nonblock() Even though we check that we "should" be able to do lc_get_cumulative() while holding the device->al_lock spinlock, it may still fail, if some other code path decided to do lc_try_lock() with bad timing. If that happened, we logged "LOGIC BUG for enr=...", but still did not return an error. The rest of the code now assumed that this request has references for the relevant activity log extents. The implcations are that during an active resync, mutual exclusivity of resync versus application IO is not guaranteed. And a potential crash at this point may not realizs that these extents could have been target of in-flight IO and would need to be resynced just in case. Also, once the request completes, it will give up activity log references it does not even hold, which will trigger a BUG_ON(refcnt == 0) in lc_put(). Fix: Do not crash the kernel for a condition that is harmless during normal operation: also catch "e->refcnt == 0", not only "e == NULL" when being noisy about "al_complete_io() called on inactive extent %u\n". And do not try to be smart and "guess" whether something will work, then be surprised when it does not. Deal with the fact that it may or may not work. If it does not, remember a possible "partially in activity log" state (only possible for requests that cross extent boundaries), and return an error code from drbd_al_begin_io_nonblock(). A latter call for the same request will then resume from where we left off. |
- risk 0.51cvss 7.8epss 0.00
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: drbd: add missing kref_get in handle_write_conflicts With `two-primaries` enabled, DRBD tries to detect "concurrent" writes and handle write conflicts, so that even if you write to the same sector simultaneously on both nodes, they end up with the identical data once the writes are completed. In handling "superseeded" writes, we forgot a kref_get, resulting in a premature drbd_destroy_device and use after free, and further to kernel crashes with symptoms. Relevance: No one should use DRBD as a random data generator, and apparently all users of "two-primaries" handle concurrent writes correctly on layer up. That is cluster file systems use some distributed lock manager, and live migration in virtualization environments stops writes on one node before starting writes on the other node. Which means that other than for "test cases", this code path is never taken in real life. FYI, in DRBD 9, things are handled differently nowadays. We still detect "write conflicts", but no longer try to be smart about them. We decided to disconnect hard instead: upper layers must not submit concurrent writes. If they do, that's their fault.
- risk 0.36cvss 5.5epss 0.00
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: drbd: fix "LOGIC BUG" in drbd_al_begin_io_nonblock() Even though we check that we "should" be able to do lc_get_cumulative() while holding the device->al_lock spinlock, it may still fail, if some other code path decided to do lc_try_lock() with bad timing. If that happened, we logged "LOGIC BUG for enr=...", but still did not return an error. The rest of the code now assumed that this request has references for the relevant activity log extents. The implcations are that during an active resync, mutual exclusivity of resync versus application IO is not guaranteed. And a potential crash at this point may not realizs that these extents could have been target of in-flight IO and would need to be resynced just in case. Also, once the request completes, it will give up activity log references it does not even hold, which will trigger a BUG_ON(refcnt == 0) in lc_put(). Fix: Do not crash the kernel for a condition that is harmless during normal operation: also catch "e->refcnt == 0", not only "e == NULL" when being noisy about "al_complete_io() called on inactive extent %u\n". And do not try to be smart and "guess" whether something will work, then be surprised when it does not. Deal with the fact that it may or may not work. If it does not, remember a possible "partially in activity log" state (only possible for requests that cross extent boundaries), and return an error code from drbd_al_begin_io_nonblock(). A latter call for the same request will then resume from where we left off.