CVE Descriptions
btrfs: do not allow relocation of partially dropped subvolumes
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: btrfs: do not allow relocation of partially dropped subvolumes [BUG] There is an internal report that balance triggered transaction abort, with the following call trace: item 85 key (594509824 169 0) itemoff 12599 itemsize 33 extent refs 1 gen 197740 flags 2 ref#0: tree block backref root 7 item 86 key (594558976 169 0) itemoff 12566 itemsize 33 extent refs 1 gen 197522 flags 2 ref#0: tree block backref root 7 ... BTRFS error (device loop0): extent item not found for insert, bytenr 594526208 num_bytes 16384 parent 449921024 root_objectid 934 owner 1 offset 0 BTRFS error (device loop0): failed to run delayed ref for logical 594526208 num_bytes 16384 type 182 action 1 ref_mod 1: -117 ------------[ cut here ]------------ BTRFS: Transaction aborted (error -117) WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 6963 at ../fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:2168 btrfs_run_delayed_refs+0xfa/0x110 [btrfs] And btrfs check doesn't report anything wrong related to the extent tree. [CAUSE] The cause is a little complex, firstly the extent tree indeed doesn't have the backref for 594526208. The extent tree only have the following two backrefs around that bytenr on-disk: item 65 key (594509824 METADATA_ITEM 0) itemoff 13880 itemsize 33 refs 1 gen 197740 flags TREE_BLOCK tree block skinny level 0 (176 0x7) tree block backref root CSUM_TREE item 66 key (594558976 METADATA_ITEM 0) itemoff 13847 itemsize 33 refs 1 gen 197522 flags TREE_BLOCK tree block skinny level 0 (176 0x7) tree block backref root CSUM_TREE But the such missing backref item is not an corruption on disk, as the offending delayed ref belongs to subvolume 934, and that subvolume is being dropped: item 0 key (934 ROOT_ITEM 198229) itemoff 15844 itemsize 439 generation 198229 root_dirid 256 bytenr 10741039104 byte_limit 0 bytes_used 345571328 last_snapshot 198229 flags 0x1000000000001(RDONLY) refs 0 drop_progress key (206324 EXTENT_DATA 2711650304) drop_level 2 level 2 generation_v2 198229 And that offending tree block 594526208 is inside the dropped range of that subvolume. That explains why there is no backref item for that bytenr and why btrfs check is not reporting anything wrong. But this also shows another problem, as btrfs will do all the orphan subvolume cleanup at a read-write mount. So half-dropped subvolume should not exist after an RW mount, and balance itself is also exclusive to subvolume cleanup, meaning we shouldn't hit a subvolume half-dropped during relocation. The root cause is, there is no orphan item for this subvolume. In fact there are 5 subvolumes from around 2021 that have the same problem. It looks like the original report has some older kernels running, and caused those zombie subvolumes. Thankfully upstream commit 8d488a8c7ba2 ("btrfs: fix subvolume/snapshot deletion not triggered on mount") has long fixed the bug. [ENHANCEMENT] For repairing such old fs, btrfs-progs will be enhanced. Considering how delayed the problem will show up (at run delayed ref time) and at that time we have to abort transaction already, it is too late. Instead here we reject any half-dropped subvolume for reloc tree at the earliest time, preventing confusion and extra time wasted on debugging similar bugs.CVE Informations
Related Weaknesses
| Weakness Name | Source | |
|---|---|---|
| No informations. |
Metrics
| Metrics | Score | Severity | CVSS Vector | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| V3.1 | 7.3 | HIGH |
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/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. Low There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to 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. 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 | 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. |
nvd@nist.gov |
EPSS
EPSS Score
EPSS Percentile
Products Mentioned
Configuraton 0
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.11.1 To (excluding) 5.15.190
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.16 To (excluding) 6.1.149
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.2 To (excluding) 6.6.103
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.7 To (excluding) 6.12.43
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.13 To (excluding) 6.15.11
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.16 To (excluding) 6.16.2
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 5.11
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 5.11
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 5.11
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 5.11
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 5.11
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 5.11
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.17
Configuraton 0
Debian>>Debian_linux >> Version 11.0
References
Tags : Mailing List, Third Party Advisory
