CVE-2025-40025 : 상세 정보

CVE-2025-40025

7.8
/
높음
0.03%V4
2025-10-28
09h32 +00:00
Local
2026-08-05
12h07 +00:00
특정 CVE 알림
특정 CVE의 변경 사항에 대한 정보를 받아보세요.
알림 관리

CVE 설명

f2fs: fix to do sanity check on node footer for non inode dnode

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: f2fs: fix to do sanity check on node footer for non inode dnode As syzbot reported below: ------------[ cut here ]------------ kernel BUG at fs/f2fs/file.c:1243! Oops: invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] SMP KASAN NOPTI CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 5354 Comm: syz.0.0 Not tainted 6.17.0-rc1-syzkaller-00211-g90d970cade8e #0 PREEMPT(full) RIP: 0010:f2fs_truncate_hole+0x69e/0x6c0 fs/f2fs/file.c:1243 Call Trace: f2fs_punch_hole+0x2db/0x330 fs/f2fs/file.c:1306 f2fs_fallocate+0x546/0x990 fs/f2fs/file.c:2018 vfs_fallocate+0x666/0x7e0 fs/open.c:342 ksys_fallocate fs/open.c:366 [inline] __do_sys_fallocate fs/open.c:371 [inline] __se_sys_fallocate fs/open.c:369 [inline] __x64_sys_fallocate+0xc0/0x110 fs/open.c:369 do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:63 [inline] do_syscall_64+0xfa/0x3b0 arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:94 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x77/0x7f RIP: 0033:0x7f1e65f8ebe9 w/ a fuzzed image, f2fs may encounter panic due to it detects inconsistent truncation range in direct node in f2fs_truncate_hole(). The root cause is: a non-inode dnode may has the same footer.ino and footer.nid, so the dnode will be parsed as an inode, then ADDRS_PER_PAGE() may return wrong blkaddr count which may be 923 typically, by chance, dn.ofs_in_node is equal to 923, then count can be calculated to 0 in below statement, later it will trigger panic w/ f2fs_bug_on(, count == 0 || ...). count = min(end_offset - dn.ofs_in_node, pg_end - pg_start); This patch introduces a new node_type NODE_TYPE_NON_INODE, then allowing passing the new_type to sanity_check_node_footer in f2fs_get_node_folio() to detect corruption that a non-inode dnode has the same footer.ino and footer.nid. Scripts to reproduce: mkfs.f2fs -f /dev/vdb mount /dev/vdb /mnt/f2fs touch /mnt/f2fs/foo touch /mnt/f2fs/bar dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/f2fs/foo bs=1M count=8 umount /mnt/f2fs inject.f2fs --node --mb i_nid --nid 4 --idx 0 --val 5 /dev/vdb mount /dev/vdb /mnt/f2fs xfs_io /mnt/f2fs/foo -c "fpunch 6984k 4k"

CVE 정보

메트릭

메트릭 점수 심각도 CVSS 벡터 출처
V3.1 7.8 HIGH CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/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.

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 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.

EPSS

EPSS는 취약점이 악용될 가능성을 예측하는 점수 모델입니다.

EPSS 점수

EPSS 모델은 0과 1(0~100%) 사이의 확률 점수를 생성합니다. 점수가 높을수록 취약점이 악용될 가능성이 높습니다.

EPSS 백분위수

백분위수는 EPSS 점수에 따라 CVE의 순위를 매기는 데 사용됩니다. 예를 들어 EPSS 점수 기준 95번째 백분위수의 CVE는 다른 CVE의 95%보다 악용될 가능성이 높습니다.

참고 자료