CVE-2025-38260 : Detail

CVE-2025-38260

5.5
/
Medium
Memory Corruption
0.08%V4
Local
2025-07-09
10h42 +00:00
2025-11-03
17h36 +00:00
Notifications for a CVE
Stay informed of any changes for a specific CVE.
Notifications manage

CVE Descriptions

btrfs: handle csum tree error with rescue=ibadroots correctly

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: btrfs: handle csum tree error with rescue=ibadroots correctly [BUG] There is syzbot based reproducer that can crash the kernel, with the following call trace: (With some debug output added) DEBUG: rescue=ibadroots parsed BTRFS: device fsid 14d642db-7b15-43e4-81e6-4b8fac6a25f8 devid 1 transid 8 /dev/loop0 (7:0) scanned by repro (1010) BTRFS info (device loop0): first mount of filesystem 14d642db-7b15-43e4-81e6-4b8fac6a25f8 BTRFS info (device loop0): using blake2b (blake2b-256-generic) checksum algorithm BTRFS info (device loop0): using free-space-tree BTRFS warning (device loop0): checksum verify failed on logical 5312512 mirror 1 wanted 0xb043382657aede36608fd3386d6b001692ff406164733d94e2d9a180412c6003 found 0x810ceb2bacb7f0f9eb2bf3b2b15c02af867cb35ad450898169f3b1f0bd818651 level 0 DEBUG: read tree root path failed for tree csum, ret=-5 BTRFS warning (device loop0): checksum verify failed on logical 5328896 mirror 1 wanted 0x51be4e8b303da58e6340226815b70e3a93592dac3f30dd510c7517454de8567a found 0x51be4e8b303da58e634022a315b70e3a93592dac3f30dd510c7517454de8567a level 0 BTRFS warning (device loop0): checksum verify failed on logical 5292032 mirror 1 wanted 0x1924ccd683be9efc2fa98582ef58760e3848e9043db8649ee382681e220cdee4 found 0x0cb6184f6e8799d9f8cb335dccd1d1832da1071d12290dab3b85b587ecacca6e level 0 process 'repro' launched './file2' with NULL argv: empty string added DEBUG: no csum root, idatacsums=0 ibadroots=134217728 Oops: general protection fault, probably for non-canonical address 0xdffffc0000000041: 0000 [#1] SMP KASAN NOPTI KASAN: null-ptr-deref in range [0x0000000000000208-0x000000000000020f] CPU: 5 UID: 0 PID: 1010 Comm: repro Tainted: G OE 6.15.0-custom+ #249 PREEMPT(full) Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS unknown 02/02/2022 RIP: 0010:btrfs_lookup_csum+0x93/0x3d0 [btrfs] Call Trace: btrfs_lookup_bio_sums+0x47a/0xdf0 [btrfs] btrfs_submit_bbio+0x43e/0x1a80 [btrfs] submit_one_bio+0xde/0x160 [btrfs] btrfs_readahead+0x498/0x6a0 [btrfs] read_pages+0x1c3/0xb20 page_cache_ra_order+0x4b5/0xc20 filemap_get_pages+0x2d3/0x19e0 filemap_read+0x314/0xde0 __kernel_read+0x35b/0x900 bprm_execve+0x62e/0x1140 do_execveat_common.isra.0+0x3fc/0x520 __x64_sys_execveat+0xdc/0x130 do_syscall_64+0x54/0x1d0 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- [CAUSE] Firstly the fs has a corrupted csum tree root, thus to mount the fs we have to go "ro,rescue=ibadroots" mount option. Normally with that mount option, a bad csum tree root should set BTRFS_FS_STATE_NO_DATA_CSUMS flag, so that any future data read will ignore csum search. But in this particular case, we have the following call trace that caused NULL csum root, but not setting BTRFS_FS_STATE_NO_DATA_CSUMS: load_global_roots_objectid(): ret = btrfs_search_slot(); /* Succeeded */ btrfs_item_key_to_cpu() found = true; /* We found the root item for csum tree. */ root = read_tree_root_path(); if (IS_ERR(root)) { if (!btrfs_test_opt(fs_info, IGNOREBADROOTS)) /* * Since we have rescue=ibadroots mount option, * @ret is still 0. */ break; if (!found || ret) { /* @found is true, @ret is 0, error handling for csum * tree is skipped. */ } This means we completely skipped to set BTRFS_FS_STATE_NO_DATA_CSUMS if the csum tree is corrupted, which results unexpected later csum lookup. [FIX] If read_tree_root_path() failed, always populate @ret to the error number. As at the end of the function, we need @ret to determine if we need to do the extra error handling for csum tree.

CVE Informations

Related Weaknesses

CWE-ID Weakness Name Source
CWE-476 NULL Pointer Dereference
The product dereferences a pointer that it expects to be valid but is NULL.

Metrics

Metrics Score Severity CVSS Vector Source
V3.1 5.5 MEDIUM CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

Base: Exploitabilty Metrics

The 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 Metrics

The 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 Metrics

The 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 Metrics

The 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 Metrics

These 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 is a scoring model that predicts the likelihood of a vulnerability being exploited.

EPSS Score

The EPSS model produces a probability score between 0 and 1 (0 and 100%). The higher the score, the greater the probability that a vulnerability will be exploited.

EPSS Percentile

The percentile is used to rank CVE according to their EPSS score. For example, a CVE in the 95th percentile according to its EPSS score is more likely to be exploited than 95% of other CVE. Thus, the percentile is used to compare the EPSS score of a CVE with that of other CVE.

Products Mentioned

Configuraton 0

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.17 To (excluding) 6.1.143

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.2 To (excluding) 6.6.96

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.7 To (excluding) 6.12.36

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.13 To (excluding) 6.15.5

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.16

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.16

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.16

Configuraton 0

Debian>>Debian_linux >> Version 11.0

References