CVE-2022-49898
Descriptions du CVE
btrfs: fix tree mod log mishandling of reallocated nodes
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: btrfs: fix tree mod log mishandling of reallocated nodes We have been seeing the following panic in production kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/tree-mod-log.c:677! invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] SMP RIP: 0010:tree_mod_log_rewind+0x1b4/0x200 RSP: 0000:ffffc9002c02f890 EFLAGS: 00010293 RAX: 0000000000000003 RBX: ffff8882b448c700 RCX: 0000000000000000 RDX: 0000000000008000 RSI: 00000000000000a7 RDI: ffff88877d831c00 RBP: 0000000000000002 R08: 000000000000009f R09: 0000000000000000 R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000100c40 R12: 0000000000000001 R13: ffff8886c26d6a00 R14: ffff88829f5424f8 R15: ffff88877d831a00 FS: 00007fee1d80c780(0000) GS:ffff8890400c0000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 CR2: 00007fee1963a020 CR3: 0000000434f33002 CR4: 00000000007706e0 DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000 DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400 PKRU: 55555554 Call Trace: btrfs_get_old_root+0x12b/0x420 btrfs_search_old_slot+0x64/0x2f0 ? tree_mod_log_oldest_root+0x3d/0xf0 resolve_indirect_ref+0xfd/0x660 ? ulist_alloc+0x31/0x60 ? kmem_cache_alloc_trace+0x114/0x2c0 find_parent_nodes+0x97a/0x17e0 ? ulist_alloc+0x30/0x60 btrfs_find_all_roots_safe+0x97/0x150 iterate_extent_inodes+0x154/0x370 ? btrfs_search_path_in_tree+0x240/0x240 iterate_inodes_from_logical+0x98/0xd0 ? btrfs_search_path_in_tree+0x240/0x240 btrfs_ioctl_logical_to_ino+0xd9/0x180 btrfs_ioctl+0xe2/0x2ec0 ? __mod_memcg_lruvec_state+0x3d/0x280 ? do_sys_openat2+0x6d/0x140 ? kretprobe_dispatcher+0x47/0x70 ? kretprobe_rethook_handler+0x38/0x50 ? rethook_trampoline_handler+0x82/0x140 ? arch_rethook_trampoline_callback+0x3b/0x50 ? kmem_cache_free+0xfb/0x270 ? do_sys_openat2+0xd5/0x140 __x64_sys_ioctl+0x71/0xb0 do_syscall_64+0x2d/0x40 Which is this code in tree_mod_log_rewind() switch (tm->op) { case BTRFS_MOD_LOG_KEY_REMOVE_WHILE_FREEING: BUG_ON(tm->slot < n); This occurs because we replay the nodes in order that they happened, and when we do a REPLACE we will log a REMOVE_WHILE_FREEING for every slot, starting at 0. 'n' here is the number of items in this block, which in this case was 1, but we had 2 REMOVE_WHILE_FREEING operations. The actual root cause of this was that we were replaying operations for a block that shouldn't have been replayed. Consider the following sequence of events 1. We have an already modified root, and we do a btrfs_get_tree_mod_seq(). 2. We begin removing items from this root, triggering KEY_REPLACE for it's child slots. 3. We remove one of the 2 children this root node points to, thus triggering the root node promotion of the remaining child, and freeing this node. 4. We modify a new root, and re-allocate the above node to the root node of this other root. The tree mod log looks something like this logical 0 op KEY_REPLACE (slot 1) seq 2 logical 0 op KEY_REMOVE (slot 1) seq 3 logical 0 op KEY_REMOVE_WHILE_FREEING (slot 0) seq 4 logical 4096 op LOG_ROOT_REPLACE (old logical 0) seq 5 logical 8192 op KEY_REMOVE_WHILE_FREEING (slot 1) seq 6 logical 8192 op KEY_REMOVE_WHILE_FREEING (slot 0) seq 7 logical 0 op LOG_ROOT_REPLACE (old logical 8192) seq 8 >From here the bug is triggered by the following steps 1. Call btrfs_get_old_root() on the new_root. 2. We call tree_mod_log_oldest_root(btrfs_root_node(new_root)), which is currently logical 0. 3. tree_mod_log_oldest_root() calls tree_mod_log_search_oldest(), which gives us the KEY_REPLACE seq 2, and since that's not a LOG_ROOT_REPLACE we incorrectly believe that we don't have an old root, because we expect that the most recent change should be a LOG_ROOT_REPLACE. 4. Back in tree_mod_log_oldest_root() we don't have a LOG_ROOT_REPLACE, so we don't set old_root, we simply use our e ---truncated---Informations du CVE
Faiblesses connexes
| Nom de la faiblesse | Source | |
|---|---|---|
| No informations. |
Métriques
| Métriques | Score | Gravité | CVSS Vecteur | 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
Score EPSS
Percentile EPSS
Products Mentioned
Configuraton 0
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 3.5 To (excluding) 5.15.78
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.16 To (excluding) 6.0.8
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.1
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.1
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.1
