FlawAtlas
Search the atlas
CVE-2026-64067 Critical

netfs: Fix missing barriers when accessing stream->subrequests locklessly

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: netfs: Fix missing barriers when accessing stream->subrequests locklessly The list of subrequests attached to stream->subrequests is accessed without locks by netfs_collect_read_results() and netfs_collect_write_results(), and then they access subreq->flags without taking a barrier after getting the subreq pointer from the list. Relatedly, the functions that build the list don't use any sort of write barrier when constructing the list to make sure that the NETFS_SREQ_IN_PROGRESS flag is perceived to be set first if no lock is taken. Fix this by: (1) Add a new list_add_tail_release() function that uses a release barrier to set the pointer to the new member of the list. (2) Add a new list_first_entry_or_null_acquire() function that uses an acquire barrier to read the pointer to the first member in a list (or return NULL). (3) Use list_add_tail_release() when adding a subreq to ->subrequests. (4) Use list_first_entry_or_null_acquire() when initially accessing the front of the list (when an item is removed, the pointer to the new front iterm is obtained under the same lock).

Exploit probability 0.4%
Published July 19, 2026
Required by Not available
Last source change August 12, 2026

02 / AFFECTED SOFTWARE

Affected packages

Linux Kernel
Unknown Unknown

04 / EVIDENCE

Source records

Open Source Vulnerabilities CVE-2026-64067

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: netfs: Fix missing barriers when accessing stream->subrequests locklessly The list of subrequests attached to stream->subrequests is accessed without locks by netfs_collect_read_results() and netfs_collect_write_results(), and then they access subreq->flags without taking a barrier after getting the subreq pointer from the list. Relatedly, the functions that build the list don't use any sort of write barrier when constructing the list to make sure that the NETFS_SREQ_IN_PROGRESS flag is perceived to be set first if no lock is taken. Fix this by: (1) Add a new list_add_tail_release() function that uses a release barrier to set the pointer to the new member of the list. (2) Add a new list_first_entry_or_null_acquire() function that uses an acquire barrier to read the pointer to the first member in a list (or return NULL). (3) Use list_add_tail_release() when adding a subreq to ->subrequests. (4) Use list_first_entry_or_null_acquire() when initially accessing the front of the list (when an item is removed, the pointer to the new front iterm is obtained under the same lock).

View original source

05 / REFERENCES

Further evidence