CVE-2022-48833:详情

CVE-2022-48833

5.5
/
中危
0.01%V4
2024-07-16
12h25 +00:00
Local
2025-09-03
12h58 +00:00
指定 CVE 通知
随时了解指定 CVE 的变更。
管理通知

CVE 描述

btrfs: skip reserved bytes warning on unmount after log cleanup failure

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: btrfs: skip reserved bytes warning on unmount after log cleanup failure After the recent changes made by commit c2e39305299f01 ("btrfs: clear extent buffer uptodate when we fail to write it") and its followup fix, commit 651740a5024117 ("btrfs: check WRITE_ERR when trying to read an extent buffer"), we can now end up not cleaning up space reservations of log tree extent buffers after a transaction abort happens, as well as not cleaning up still dirty extent buffers. This happens because if writeback for a log tree extent buffer failed, then we have cleared the bit EXTENT_BUFFER_UPTODATE from the extent buffer and we have also set the bit EXTENT_BUFFER_WRITE_ERR on it. Later on, when trying to free the log tree with free_log_tree(), which iterates over the tree, we can end up getting an -EIO error when trying to read a node or a leaf, since read_extent_buffer_pages() returns -EIO if an extent buffer does not have EXTENT_BUFFER_UPTODATE set and has the EXTENT_BUFFER_WRITE_ERR bit set. Getting that -EIO means that we return immediately as we can not iterate over the entire tree. In that case we never update the reserved space for an extent buffer in the respective block group and space_info object. When this happens we get the following traces when unmounting the fs: [174957.284509] BTRFS: error (device dm-0) in cleanup_transaction:1913: errno=-5 IO failure [174957.286497] BTRFS: error (device dm-0) in free_log_tree:3420: errno=-5 IO failure [174957.399379] ------------[ cut here ]------------ [174957.402497] WARNING: CPU: 2 PID: 3206883 at fs/btrfs/block-group.c:127 btrfs_put_block_group+0x77/0xb0 [btrfs] [174957.407523] Modules linked in: btrfs overlay dm_zero (...) [174957.424917] CPU: 2 PID: 3206883 Comm: umount Tainted: G W 5.16.0-rc5-btrfs-next-109 #1 [174957.426689] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS rel-1.14.0-0-g155821a1990b-prebuilt.qemu.org 04/01/2014 [174957.428716] RIP: 0010:btrfs_put_block_group+0x77/0xb0 [btrfs] [174957.429717] Code: 21 48 8b bd (...) [174957.432867] RSP: 0018:ffffb70d41cffdd0 EFLAGS: 00010206 [174957.433632] RAX: 0000000000000001 RBX: ffff8b09c3848000 RCX: ffff8b0758edd1c8 [174957.434689] RDX: 0000000000000001 RSI: ffffffffc0b467e7 RDI: ffff8b0758edd000 [174957.436068] RBP: ffff8b0758edd000 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000000000000 [174957.437114] R10: 0000000000000246 R11: 0000000000000000 R12: ffff8b09c3848148 [174957.438140] R13: ffff8b09c3848198 R14: ffff8b0758edd188 R15: dead000000000100 [174957.439317] FS: 00007f328fb82800(0000) GS:ffff8b0a2d200000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 [174957.440402] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 [174957.441164] CR2: 00007fff13563e98 CR3: 0000000404f4e005 CR4: 0000000000370ee0 [174957.442117] DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000 [174957.443076] DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400 [174957.443948] Call Trace: [174957.444264] [174957.444538] btrfs_free_block_groups+0x255/0x3c0 [btrfs] [174957.445238] close_ctree+0x301/0x357 [btrfs] [174957.445803] ? call_rcu+0x16c/0x290 [174957.446250] generic_shutdown_super+0x74/0x120 [174957.446832] kill_anon_super+0x14/0x30 [174957.447305] btrfs_kill_super+0x12/0x20 [btrfs] [174957.447890] deactivate_locked_super+0x31/0xa0 [174957.448440] cleanup_mnt+0x147/0x1c0 [174957.448888] task_work_run+0x5c/0xa0 [174957.449336] exit_to_user_mode_prepare+0x1e5/0x1f0 [174957.449934] syscall_exit_to_user_mode+0x16/0x40 [174957.450512] do_syscall_64+0x48/0xc0 [174957.450980] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae [174957.451605] RIP: 0033:0x7f328fdc4a97 [174957.452059] Code: 03 0c 00 f7 (...) [174957.454320] RSP: 002b:00007fff13564ec8 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 00000000000000a6 [174957.455262] RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: 00007f328feea264 RCX: 00007f328fdc4a97 [174957.456131] RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 00000000000000 ---truncated---

CVE 信息

相关弱点

CWE-ID 弱点名称 来源
CWE Other 暂无信息。

指标

指标 评分 严重程度 CVSS 向量 来源
V3.1 5.5 MEDIUM CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/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.

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 是一种预测漏洞被利用可能性的评分模型。

EPSS 评分

EPSS 模型生成一个介于 0 到 1(即 0% 到 100%)之间的概率评分。评分越高,漏洞被利用的可能性越大。

EPSS 百分位

百分位用于根据 EPSS 评分对 CVE 进行排名。例如,EPSS 百分位为第 95 的 CVE,其被利用的可能性高于 95% 的其他 CVE。因此,百分位可用于比较不同 CVE 的 EPSS 评分。

相关产品

配置 0

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 从(含) 5.4.165 至(不含) 5.5

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 从(含) 5.10.85 至(不含) 5.11

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 从(含) 5.15.8 至(不含) 5.15.31

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 从(含) 5.15.11 至(不含) 5.16

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 从(含) 5.16.1 至(不含) 5.16.17

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 从(含) 5.18 至(不含) 5.17

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 5.16

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 5.16

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 5.16

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 5.16

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 5.17

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 5.17

参考资料