In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

ceph: fix i_nlink underrun during async unlink

During async unlink, we drop the `i_nlink` counter before we receive
the completion (that will eventually update the `i_nlink`) because "we
assume that the unlink will succeed". That is not a bad idea, but it
races against deletions by other clients (or against the completion of
our own unlink) and can lead to an underrun which emits a WARNING like
this one:

WARNING: CPU: 85 PID: 25093 at fs/inode.c:407 drop_nlink+0x50/0x68
Modules linked in:
CPU: 85 UID: 3221252029 PID: 25093 Comm: php-cgi8.1 Not tainted 6.14.11-cm4all1-ampere #655
Hardware name: Supermicro ARS-110M-NR/R12SPD-A, BIOS 1.1b 10/17/2023
pstate: 60400009 (nZCv daif +PAN -UAO -TCO -DIT -SSBS BTYPE=--)
pc : drop_nlink+0x50/0x68
lr : ceph_unlink+0x6c4/0x720
sp : ffff80012173bc90
x29: ffff80012173bc90 x28: ffff086d0a45aaf8 x27: ffff0871d0eb5680
x26: ffff087f2a64a718 x25: 0000020000000180 x24: 0000000061c88647
x23: 0000000000000002 x22: ffff07ff9236d800 x21: 0000000000001203
x20: ffff07ff9237b000 x19: ffff088b8296afc0 x18: 00000000f3c93365
x17: 0000000000070000 x16: ffff08faffcbdfe8 x15: ffff08faffcbdfec
x14: 0000000000000000 x13: 45445f65645f3037 x12: 34385f6369706f74
x11: 0000a2653104bb20 x10: ffffd85f26d73290 x9 : ffffd85f25664f94
x8 : 00000000000000c0 x7 : 0000000000000000 x6 : 0000000000000002
x5 : 0000000000000081 x4 : 0000000000000481 x3 : 0000000000000000
x2 : 0000000000000000 x1 : 0000000000000000 x0 : ffff08727d3f91e8
Call trace:
drop_nlink+0x50/0x68 (P)
vfs_unlink+0xb0/0x2e8
do_unlinkat+0x204/0x288
__arm64_sys_unlinkat+0x3c/0x80
invoke_syscall.constprop.0+0x54/0xe8
do_el0_svc+0xa4/0xc8
el0_svc+0x18/0x58
el0t_64_sync_handler+0x104/0x130
el0t_64_sync+0x154/0x158

In ceph_unlink(), a call to ceph_mdsc_submit_request() submits the
CEPH_MDS_OP_UNLINK to the MDS, but does not wait for completion.

Meanwhile, between this call and the following drop_nlink() call, a
worker thread may process a CEPH_CAP_OP_IMPORT, CEPH_CAP_OP_GRANT or
just a CEPH_MSG_CLIENT_REPLY (the latter of which could be our own
completion). These will lead to a set_nlink() call, updating the
`i_nlink` counter to the value received from the MDS. If that new
`i_nlink` value happens to be zero, it is illegal to decrement it
further. But that is exactly what ceph_unlink() will do then.

The WARNING can be reproduced this way:

1. Force async unlink; only the async code path is affected. Having
no real clue about Ceph internals, I was unable to find out why the
MDS wouldn't give me the "Fxr" capabilities, so I patched
get_caps_for_async_unlink() to always succeed.

(Note that the WARNING dump above was found on an unpatched kernel,
without this kludge - this is not a theoretical bug.)

2. Add a sleep call after ceph_mdsc_submit_request() so the unlink
completion gets handled by a worker thread before drop_nlink() is
called. This guarantees that the `i_nlink` is already zero before
drop_nlink() runs.

The solution is to skip the counter decrement when it is already zero,
but doing so without a lock is still racy (TOCTOU). Since
ceph_fill_inode() and handle_cap_grant() both hold the
`ceph_inode_info.i_ceph_lock` spinlock while set_nlink() runs, this
seems like the proper lock to protect the `i_nlink` updates.

I found prior art in NFS and SMB (using `inode.i_lock`) and AFS (using
`afs_vnode.cb_lock`). All three have the zero check as well.

Project Subscriptions

Vendors Products
Linux Kernel Subscribe
Advisories

No advisories yet.

Fixes

Solution

No solution given by the vendor.


Workaround

No workaround given by the vendor.

History

Fri, 08 May 2026 19:30:00 +0000

Type Values Removed Values Added
Weaknesses CWE-362

Fri, 08 May 2026 14:45:00 +0000

Type Values Removed Values Added
Description In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ceph: fix i_nlink underrun during async unlink During async unlink, we drop the `i_nlink` counter before we receive the completion (that will eventually update the `i_nlink`) because "we assume that the unlink will succeed". That is not a bad idea, but it races against deletions by other clients (or against the completion of our own unlink) and can lead to an underrun which emits a WARNING like this one: WARNING: CPU: 85 PID: 25093 at fs/inode.c:407 drop_nlink+0x50/0x68 Modules linked in: CPU: 85 UID: 3221252029 PID: 25093 Comm: php-cgi8.1 Not tainted 6.14.11-cm4all1-ampere #655 Hardware name: Supermicro ARS-110M-NR/R12SPD-A, BIOS 1.1b 10/17/2023 pstate: 60400009 (nZCv daif +PAN -UAO -TCO -DIT -SSBS BTYPE=--) pc : drop_nlink+0x50/0x68 lr : ceph_unlink+0x6c4/0x720 sp : ffff80012173bc90 x29: ffff80012173bc90 x28: ffff086d0a45aaf8 x27: ffff0871d0eb5680 x26: ffff087f2a64a718 x25: 0000020000000180 x24: 0000000061c88647 x23: 0000000000000002 x22: ffff07ff9236d800 x21: 0000000000001203 x20: ffff07ff9237b000 x19: ffff088b8296afc0 x18: 00000000f3c93365 x17: 0000000000070000 x16: ffff08faffcbdfe8 x15: ffff08faffcbdfec x14: 0000000000000000 x13: 45445f65645f3037 x12: 34385f6369706f74 x11: 0000a2653104bb20 x10: ffffd85f26d73290 x9 : ffffd85f25664f94 x8 : 00000000000000c0 x7 : 0000000000000000 x6 : 0000000000000002 x5 : 0000000000000081 x4 : 0000000000000481 x3 : 0000000000000000 x2 : 0000000000000000 x1 : 0000000000000000 x0 : ffff08727d3f91e8 Call trace: drop_nlink+0x50/0x68 (P) vfs_unlink+0xb0/0x2e8 do_unlinkat+0x204/0x288 __arm64_sys_unlinkat+0x3c/0x80 invoke_syscall.constprop.0+0x54/0xe8 do_el0_svc+0xa4/0xc8 el0_svc+0x18/0x58 el0t_64_sync_handler+0x104/0x130 el0t_64_sync+0x154/0x158 In ceph_unlink(), a call to ceph_mdsc_submit_request() submits the CEPH_MDS_OP_UNLINK to the MDS, but does not wait for completion. Meanwhile, between this call and the following drop_nlink() call, a worker thread may process a CEPH_CAP_OP_IMPORT, CEPH_CAP_OP_GRANT or just a CEPH_MSG_CLIENT_REPLY (the latter of which could be our own completion). These will lead to a set_nlink() call, updating the `i_nlink` counter to the value received from the MDS. If that new `i_nlink` value happens to be zero, it is illegal to decrement it further. But that is exactly what ceph_unlink() will do then. The WARNING can be reproduced this way: 1. Force async unlink; only the async code path is affected. Having no real clue about Ceph internals, I was unable to find out why the MDS wouldn't give me the "Fxr" capabilities, so I patched get_caps_for_async_unlink() to always succeed. (Note that the WARNING dump above was found on an unpatched kernel, without this kludge - this is not a theoretical bug.) 2. Add a sleep call after ceph_mdsc_submit_request() so the unlink completion gets handled by a worker thread before drop_nlink() is called. This guarantees that the `i_nlink` is already zero before drop_nlink() runs. The solution is to skip the counter decrement when it is already zero, but doing so without a lock is still racy (TOCTOU). Since ceph_fill_inode() and handle_cap_grant() both hold the `ceph_inode_info.i_ceph_lock` spinlock while set_nlink() runs, this seems like the proper lock to protect the `i_nlink` updates. I found prior art in NFS and SMB (using `inode.i_lock`) and AFS (using `afs_vnode.cb_lock`). All three have the zero check as well.
Title ceph: fix i_nlink underrun during async unlink
First Time appeared Linux
Linux linux Kernel
CPEs cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
Vendors & Products Linux
Linux linux Kernel
References

Projects

Sign in to view the affected projects.

cve-icon MITRE

Status: PUBLISHED

Assigner: Linux

Published:

Updated: 2026-05-08T14:21:55.717Z

Reserved: 2026-05-01T14:12:56.008Z

Link: CVE-2026-43420

cve-icon Vulnrichment

No data.

cve-icon NVD

Status : Received

Published: 2026-05-08T15:16:54.023

Modified: 2026-05-08T15:16:54.023

Link: CVE-2026-43420

cve-icon Redhat

No data.

cve-icon OpenCVE Enrichment

Updated: 2026-05-08T19:15:14Z

Weaknesses