CVE Descriptions
btrfs: do proper folio cleanup when run_delalloc_nocow() failed
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: btrfs: do proper folio cleanup when run_delalloc_nocow() failed [BUG] With CONFIG_DEBUG_VM set, test case generic/476 has some chance to crash with the following VM_BUG_ON_FOLIO(): BTRFS error (device dm-3): cow_file_range failed, start 1146880 end 1253375 len 106496 ret -28 BTRFS error (device dm-3): run_delalloc_nocow failed, start 1146880 end 1253375 len 106496 ret -28 page: refcount:4 mapcount:0 mapping:00000000592787cc index:0x12 pfn:0x10664 aops:btrfs_aops [btrfs] ino:101 dentry name(?):"f1774" flags: 0x2fffff80004028(uptodate|lru|private|node=0|zone=2|lastcpupid=0xfffff) page dumped because: VM_BUG_ON_FOLIO(!folio_test_locked(folio)) ------------[ cut here ]------------ kernel BUG at mm/page-writeback.c:2992! Internal error: Oops - BUG: 00000000f2000800 [#1] SMP CPU: 2 UID: 0 PID: 3943513 Comm: kworker/u24:15 Tainted: G OE 6.12.0-rc7-custom+ #87 Tainted: [O]=OOT_MODULE, [E]=UNSIGNED_MODULE Hardware name: QEMU KVM Virtual Machine, BIOS unknown 2/2/2022 Workqueue: events_unbound btrfs_async_reclaim_data_space [btrfs] pc : folio_clear_dirty_for_io+0x128/0x258 lr : folio_clear_dirty_for_io+0x128/0x258 Call trace: folio_clear_dirty_for_io+0x128/0x258 btrfs_folio_clamp_clear_dirty+0x80/0xd0 [btrfs] __process_folios_contig+0x154/0x268 [btrfs] extent_clear_unlock_delalloc+0x5c/0x80 [btrfs] run_delalloc_nocow+0x5f8/0x760 [btrfs] btrfs_run_delalloc_range+0xa8/0x220 [btrfs] writepage_delalloc+0x230/0x4c8 [btrfs] extent_writepage+0xb8/0x358 [btrfs] extent_write_cache_pages+0x21c/0x4e8 [btrfs] btrfs_writepages+0x94/0x150 [btrfs] do_writepages+0x74/0x190 filemap_fdatawrite_wbc+0x88/0xc8 start_delalloc_inodes+0x178/0x3a8 [btrfs] btrfs_start_delalloc_roots+0x174/0x280 [btrfs] shrink_delalloc+0x114/0x280 [btrfs] flush_space+0x250/0x2f8 [btrfs] btrfs_async_reclaim_data_space+0x180/0x228 [btrfs] process_one_work+0x164/0x408 worker_thread+0x25c/0x388 kthread+0x100/0x118 ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20 Code: 910a8021 a90363f7 a9046bf9 94012379 (d4210000) ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- [CAUSE] The first two lines of extra debug messages show the problem is caused by the error handling of run_delalloc_nocow(). E.g. we have the following dirtied range (4K blocksize 4K page size): 0 16K 32K |//////////////////////////////////////| | Pre-allocated | And the range [0, 16K) has a preallocated extent. - Enter run_delalloc_nocow() for range [0, 16K) Which found range [0, 16K) is preallocated, can do the proper NOCOW write. - Enter fallback_to_fow() for range [16K, 32K) Since the range [16K, 32K) is not backed by preallocated extent, we have to go COW. - cow_file_range() failed for range [16K, 32K) So cow_file_range() will do the clean up by clearing folio dirty, unlock the folios. Now the folios in range [16K, 32K) is unlocked. - Enter extent_clear_unlock_delalloc() from run_delalloc_nocow() Which is called with PAGE_START_WRITEBACK to start page writeback. But folios can only be marked writeback when it's properly locked, thus this triggered the VM_BUG_ON_FOLIO(). Furthermore there is another hidden but common bug that run_delalloc_nocow() is not clearing the folio dirty flags in its error handling path. This is the common bug shared between run_delalloc_nocow() and cow_file_range(). [FIX] - Clear folio dirty for range [@start, @cur_offset) Introduce a helper, cleanup_dirty_folios(), which will find and lock the folio in the range, clear the dirty flag and start/end the writeback, with the extra handling for the @locked_folio. - Introduce a helper to clear folio dirty, start and end writeback - Introduce a helper to record the last failed COW range end This is to trace which range we should skip, to avoid double unlocking. - Skip the failed COW range for the e ---truncated---CVE Informations
Related Weaknesses
| Weakness Name | Source | |
|---|---|---|
| Incomplete Cleanup The product does not properly "clean up" and remove temporary or supporting resources after they have been used. |
Metrics
| Metrics | Score | Severity | CVSS Vector | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| V3.1 | 7.8 | HIGH |
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
More informations
Base: Exploitabilty MetricsThe Exploitability metrics reflect the characteristics of the thing that is vulnerable, which we refer to formally as the vulnerable component. Attack Vector This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. Local The vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities. Attack Complexity This metric describes the conditions beyond the attacker’s control that must exist in order to exploit the vulnerability. Low Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success when attacking the vulnerable component. Privileges Required This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess before successfully exploiting the vulnerability. Low The attacker requires privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources. User Interaction This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable component. None The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any user. Base: Scope MetricsThe Scope metric captures whether a vulnerability in one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope. Scope Formally, a security authority is a mechanism (e.g., an application, an operating system, firmware, a sandbox environment) that defines and enforces access control in terms of how certain subjects/actors (e.g., human users, processes) can access certain restricted objects/resources (e.g., files, CPU, memory) in a controlled manner. All the subjects and objects under the jurisdiction of a single security authority are considered to be under one security scope. If a vulnerability in a vulnerable component can affect a component which is in a different security scope than the vulnerable component, a Scope change occurs. Intuitively, whenever the impact of a vulnerability breaches a security/trust boundary and impacts components outside the security scope in which vulnerable component resides, a Scope change occurs. Unchanged An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority. Base: Impact MetricsThe Impact metrics capture the effects of a successfully exploited vulnerability on the component that suffers the worst outcome that is most directly and predictably associated with the attack. Analysts should constrain impacts to a reasonable, final outcome which they are confident an attacker is able to achieve. Confidentiality Impact This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information resources managed by a software component due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. High There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server. Integrity Impact This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. High There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component. Availability Impact This metric measures the impact to the availability of the impacted component resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. High There is a total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable). Temporal MetricsThe Temporal metrics measure the current state of exploit techniques or code availability, the existence of any patches or workarounds, or the confidence in the description of a vulnerability. Environmental MetricsThese metrics enable the analyst to customize the CVSS score depending on the importance of the affected IT asset to a user’s organization, measured in terms of Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability. |
|
| V3.1 | 5.5 | MEDIUM |
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
More informations
Base: Exploitabilty MetricsThe Exploitability metrics reflect the characteristics of the thing that is vulnerable, which we refer to formally as the vulnerable component. Attack Vector This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. Local The vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities. Attack Complexity This metric describes the conditions beyond the attacker’s control that must exist in order to exploit the vulnerability. Low Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success when attacking the vulnerable component. Privileges Required This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess before successfully exploiting the vulnerability. Low The attacker requires privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources. User Interaction This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable component. None The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any user. Base: Scope MetricsThe Scope metric captures whether a vulnerability in one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope. Scope Formally, a security authority is a mechanism (e.g., an application, an operating system, firmware, a sandbox environment) that defines and enforces access control in terms of how certain subjects/actors (e.g., human users, processes) can access certain restricted objects/resources (e.g., files, CPU, memory) in a controlled manner. All the subjects and objects under the jurisdiction of a single security authority are considered to be under one security scope. If a vulnerability in a vulnerable component can affect a component which is in a different security scope than the vulnerable component, a Scope change occurs. Intuitively, whenever the impact of a vulnerability breaches a security/trust boundary and impacts components outside the security scope in which vulnerable component resides, a Scope change occurs. Unchanged An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority. Base: Impact MetricsThe Impact metrics capture the effects of a successfully exploited vulnerability on the component that suffers the worst outcome that is most directly and predictably associated with the attack. Analysts should constrain impacts to a reasonable, final outcome which they are confident an attacker is able to achieve. Confidentiality Impact This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information resources managed by a software component due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. None There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component. Integrity Impact This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. None There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component. Availability Impact This metric measures the impact to the availability of the impacted component resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. High There is a total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable). Temporal MetricsThe Temporal metrics measure the current state of exploit techniques or code availability, the existence of any patches or workarounds, or the confidence in the description of a vulnerability. Environmental MetricsThese metrics enable the analyst to customize the CVSS score depending on the importance of the affected IT asset to a user’s organization, measured in terms of Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability. |
nvd@nist.gov |
EPSS
EPSS Score
EPSS Percentile
Products Mentioned
Configuraton 0
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version To (excluding) 6.12.13
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.13 To (excluding) 6.13.2
