CVE-2024-26794
Descriptions du CVE
btrfs: fix race between ordered extent completion and fiemap
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: btrfs: fix race between ordered extent completion and fiemap For fiemap we recently stopped locking the target extent range for the whole duration of the fiemap call, in order to avoid a deadlock in a scenario where the fiemap buffer happens to be a memory mapped range of the same file. This use case is very unlikely to be useful in practice but it may be triggered by fuzz testing (syzbot, etc). However by not locking the target extent range for the whole duration of the fiemap call we can race with an ordered extent. This happens like this: 1) The fiemap task finishes processing a file extent item that covers the file range [512K, 1M[, and that file extent item is the last item in the leaf currently being processed; 2) And ordered extent for the file range [768K, 2M[, in COW mode, completes (btrfs_finish_one_ordered()) and the file extent item covering the range [512K, 1M[ is trimmed to cover the range [512K, 768K[ and then a new file extent item for the range [768K, 2M[ is inserted in the inode's subvolume tree; 3) The fiemap task calls fiemap_next_leaf_item(), which then calls btrfs_next_leaf() to find the next leaf / item. This finds that the the next key following the one we previously processed (its type is BTRFS_EXTENT_DATA_KEY and its offset is 512K), is the key corresponding to the new file extent item inserted by the ordered extent, which has a type of BTRFS_EXTENT_DATA_KEY and an offset of 768K; 4) Later the fiemap code ends up at emit_fiemap_extent() and triggers the warning: if (cache->offset + cache->len > offset) { WARN_ON(1); return -EINVAL; } Since we get 1M > 768K, because the previously emitted entry for the old extent covering the file range [512K, 1M[ ends at an offset that is greater than the new extent's start offset (768K). This makes fiemap fail with -EINVAL besides triggering the warning that produces a stack trace like the following: [1621.677651] ------------[ cut here ]------------ [1621.677656] WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 204366 at fs/btrfs/extent_io.c:2492 emit_fiemap_extent+0x84/0x90 [btrfs] [1621.677899] Modules linked in: btrfs blake2b_generic (...) [1621.677951] CPU: 1 PID: 204366 Comm: pool Not tainted 6.8.0-rc5-btrfs-next-151+ #1 [1621.677954] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS rel-1.16.2-0-gea1b7a073390-prebuilt.qemu.org 04/01/2014 [1621.677956] RIP: 0010:emit_fiemap_extent+0x84/0x90 [btrfs] [1621.678033] Code: 2b 4c 89 63 (...) [1621.678035] RSP: 0018:ffffab16089ffd20 EFLAGS: 00010206 [1621.678037] RAX: 00000000004fa000 RBX: ffffab16089ffe08 RCX: 0000000000009000 [1621.678039] RDX: 00000000004f9000 RSI: 00000000004f1000 RDI: ffffab16089ffe90 [1621.678040] RBP: 00000000004f9000 R08: 0000000000001000 R09: 0000000000000000 [1621.678041] R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000001000 R12: 0000000041d78000 [1621.678043] R13: 0000000000001000 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: ffff9434f0b17850 [1621.678044] FS: 00007fa6e20006c0(0000) GS:ffff943bdfa40000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 [1621.678046] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 [1621.678048] CR2: 00007fa6b0801000 CR3: 000000012d404002 CR4: 0000000000370ef0 [1621.678053] DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000 [1621.678055] DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400 [1621.678056] Call Trace: [1621.678074]Informations du CVE
Faiblesses connexes
| Nom de la faiblesse | Source | |
|---|---|---|
| Concurrent Execution using Shared Resource with Improper Synchronization ('Race Condition') The product contains a concurrent code sequence that requires temporary, exclusive access to a shared resource, but a timing window exists in which the shared resource can be modified by another code sequence operating concurrently. |
Métriques
| Métriques | Score | Gravité | CVSS Vecteur | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| V3.1 | 5.3 | MEDIUM |
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
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. Network The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed “remotely exploitable” and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers). 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. None The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack. 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. Low Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the impacted component. 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. |
134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0 |
EPSS
Score EPSS
Percentile EPSS
Products Mentioned
Configuraton 0
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.6.24
- Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.6.24 (Open CPE detail)
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.7.12
- Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.7.12 (Open CPE detail)
