CVE Descriptions

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: btrfs: set BTRFS_ROOT_ORPHAN_CLEANUP during subvol create We have recently observed a number of subvolumes with broken dentries. ls-ing the parent dir looks like: drwxrwxrwt 1 root root 16 Jan 23 16:49 . drwxr-xr-x 1 root root 24 Jan 23 16:48 .. d????????? ? ? ? ? ? broken_subvol and similarly stat-ing the file fails. In this state, deleting the subvol fails with ENOENT, but attempting to create a new file or subvol over it errors out with EEXIST and even aborts the fs. Which leaves us a bit stuck. dmesg contains a single notable error message reading: "could not do orphan cleanup -2" 2 is ENOENT and the error comes from the failure handling path of btrfs_orphan_cleanup(), with the stack leading back up to btrfs_lookup(). btrfs_lookup btrfs_lookup_dentry btrfs_orphan_cleanup // prints that message and returns -ENOENT After some detailed inspection of the internal state, it became clear that: - there are no orphan items for the subvol - the subvol is otherwise healthy looking, it is not half-deleted or anything, there is no drop progress, etc. - the subvol was created a while ago and does the meaningful first btrfs_orphan_cleanup() call that sets BTRFS_ROOT_ORPHAN_CLEANUP much later. - after btrfs_orphan_cleanup() fails, btrfs_lookup_dentry() returns -ENOENT, which results in a negative dentry for the subvolume via d_splice_alias(NULL, dentry), leading to the observed behavior. The bug can be mitigated by dropping the dentry cache, at which point we can successfully delete the subvolume if we want. i.e., btrfs_lookup() btrfs_lookup_dentry() if (!sb_rdonly(inode->vfs_inode)->vfs_inode) btrfs_orphan_cleanup(sub_root) test_and_set_bit(BTRFS_ROOT_ORPHAN_CLEANUP) btrfs_search_slot() // finds orphan item for inode N ... prints "could not do orphan cleanup -2" if (inode == ERR_PTR(-ENOENT)) inode = NULL; return d_splice_alias(NULL, dentry) // NEGATIVE DENTRY for valid subvolume btrfs_orphan_cleanup() does test_and_set_bit(BTRFS_ROOT_ORPHAN_CLEANUP) on the root when it runs, so it cannot run more than once on a given root, so something else must run concurrently. However, the obvious routes to deleting an orphan when nlinks goes to 0 should not be able to run without first doing a lookup into the subvolume, which should run btrfs_orphan_cleanup() and set the bit. The final important observation is that create_subvol() calls d_instantiate_new() but does not set BTRFS_ROOT_ORPHAN_CLEANUP, so if the dentry cache gets dropped, the next lookup into the subvolume will make a real call into btrfs_orphan_cleanup() for the first time. This opens up the possibility of concurrently deleting the inode/orphan items but most typical evict() paths will be holding a reference on the parent dentry (child dentry holds parent->d_lockref.count via dget in d_alloc(), released in __dentry_kill()) and prevent the parent from being removed from the dentry cache. The one exception is delayed iputs. Ordered extent creation calls igrab() on the inode. If the file is unlinked and closed while those refs are held, iput() in __dentry_kill() decrements i_count but does not trigger eviction (i_count > 0). The child dentry is freed and the subvol dentry's d_lockref.count drops to 0, making it evictable while the inode is still alive. Since there are two races (the race between writeback and unlink and the race between lookup and delayed iputs), and there are too many moving parts, the following three diagrams show the complete picture. (Only the second and third are races) Phase 1: Create Subvol in dentry cache without BTRFS_ROOT_ORPHAN_CLEANUP set btrfs_mksubvol() lookup_one_len() __lookup_slow() d_alloc_parallel() __d_alloc() // d_lockref.count = 1 create_subvol(dentry) // doesn't touch the bit.. d_instantiate_new(dentry, inode) // dentry in cache with d_lockref.c ---truncated---

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 More informations 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.

EPSS First.org