CVE-2024-26685
14h54 +00:00
CVE 描述
nilfs2: fix potential bug in end_buffer_async_write
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: nilfs2: fix potential bug in end_buffer_async_write According to a syzbot report, end_buffer_async_write(), which handles the completion of block device writes, may detect abnormal condition of the buffer async_write flag and cause a BUG_ON failure when using nilfs2. Nilfs2 itself does not use end_buffer_async_write(). But, the async_write flag is now used as a marker by commit 7f42ec394156 ("nilfs2: fix issue with race condition of competition between segments for dirty blocks") as a means of resolving double list insertion of dirty blocks in nilfs_lookup_dirty_data_buffers() and nilfs_lookup_node_buffers() and the resulting crash. This modification is safe as long as it is used for file data and b-tree node blocks where the page caches are independent. However, it was irrelevant and redundant to also introduce async_write for segment summary and super root blocks that share buffers with the backing device. This led to the possibility that the BUG_ON check in end_buffer_async_write would fail as described above, if independent writebacks of the backing device occurred in parallel. The use of async_write for segment summary buffers has already been removed in a previous change. Fix this issue by removing the manipulation of the async_write flag for the remaining super root block buffer.CVE 信息
相关弱点
| 弱点名称 | 来源 | |
|---|---|---|
| Out-of-bounds Write The product writes data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer. |
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
更多信息
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. |
134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0 |
EPSS
EPSS 评分
EPSS 百分位
相关产品
配置 0
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 从（含） 3.2.52 至（不含） 3.3
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 从（含） 3.4.83 至（不含） 3.5
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 从（含） 3.10.16 至（不含） 3.11
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 从（含） 3.11.5 至（不含） 4.19.307
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 从（含） 4.20 至（不含） 5.4.269
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 从（含） 5.5 至（不含） 5.10.210
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 从（含） 5.11 至（不含） 5.15.149
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 从（含） 5.16 至（不含） 6.1.79
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 从（含） 6.2 至（不含） 6.6.18
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 从（含） 6.7 至（不含） 6.7.6
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.8
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.8
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.8
配置 0
Debian>>Debian_linux >> Version 10.0
参考资料
Tags : Mailing List, Third Party Advisory
Tags : Mailing List, Third Party Advisory
