CVE-2026-89646 : 상세 정보

CVE-2026-89646

7.8
/
높음
2026-09-11
20h19 +00:00
Local
2026-10-19
09h18 +00:00
특정 CVE 알림
특정 CVE의 변경 사항에 대한 정보를 받아보세요.
알림 관리

CVE 설명

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ceph: fix leaked inode reference on writeback abort at umount ceph_dirty_folio() takes a wrbuffer claim on each newly dirtied folio: it bumps i_wrbuffer_ref (taking an ihold() on the 0->1 transition) and attaches the snap_context to folio->private. That claim is released only by ceph_put_wrbuffer_cap_refs(), which for a submitted write runs from writepages_finish(). In ceph_submit_write(), if ceph_inc_osd_stopping_blocker() fails -- which happens during umount -- the request is aborted before submission: the already-collected folios are only redirtied and unlocked, so writepages_finish() never runs and the claim is leaked. redirty_page_for_writepage() -> folio_redirty_for_writepage() -> filemap_dirty_folio() sets PG_dirty directly and does not go through ->dirty_folio, so ceph_dirty_folio() is not re-entered to rebalance it. Because every subsequent writeback also fails the osd_stopping_blocker, i_wrbuffer_ref never returns to 0, the ihold() is never dropped, and the inode cannot be evicted: VFS: Busy inodes after unmount of ceph kernel BUG at fs/super.c:650! Release the orphaned claim in the abort path before redirtying, via ceph_undo_wrbuffer_claim(): detach the snap_context, drop the wrbuffer reference (letting i_wrbuffer_ref reach 0 and iput() the inode), and drop the snap_context reference -- i.e. do what writepages_finish() would have done for these never-submitted folios. Only the locked_pages entries are undone; folios still in the fbatch were never dirty-cleared by this call (folio_clear_dirty_for_io() is the ownership-transfer point, and a successful move NULLs the fbatch slot), so they hold no claim this call owns.

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.

416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67

참고 자료