CVE-2026-43046:详情

CVE-2026-43046

5.5
/
中危
0.02%V4
2026-05-01
15h16 +00:00
Local
2026-05-08
13h52 +00:00
指定 CVE 通知
随时了解指定 CVE 的变更。
管理通知

CVE 描述

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: btrfs: reject root items with drop_progress and zero drop_level [BUG] When recovering relocation at mount time, merge_reloc_root() and btrfs_drop_snapshot() both use BUG_ON(level == 0) to guard against an impossible state: a non-zero drop_progress combined with a zero drop_level in a root_item, which can be triggered: ------------[ cut here ]------------ kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/relocation.c:1545! Oops: invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] SMP KASAN NOPTI CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 283 ... Tainted: 6.18.0+ #16 PREEMPT(voluntary) Tainted: [O]=OOT_MODULE, [E]=UNSIGNED_MODULE Hardware name: QEMU Ubuntu 24.04 PC v2, BIOS 1.16.3-debian-1.16.3-2 RIP: 0010:merge_reloc_root+0x1266/0x1650 fs/btrfs/relocation.c:1545 Code: ffff0000 00004589 d7e9acfa ffffe8a1 79bafebe 02000000 Call Trace: merge_reloc_roots+0x295/0x890 fs/btrfs/relocation.c:1861 btrfs_recover_relocation+0xd6e/0x11d0 fs/btrfs/relocation.c:4195 btrfs_start_pre_rw_mount+0xa4d/0x1810 fs/btrfs/disk-io.c:3130 open_ctree+0x5824/0x5fe0 fs/btrfs/disk-io.c:3640 btrfs_fill_super fs/btrfs/super.c:987 [inline] btrfs_get_tree_super fs/btrfs/super.c:1951 [inline] btrfs_get_tree_subvol fs/btrfs/super.c:2094 [inline] btrfs_get_tree+0x111c/0x2190 fs/btrfs/super.c:2128 vfs_get_tree+0x9a/0x370 fs/super.c:1758 fc_mount fs/namespace.c:1199 [inline] do_new_mount_fc fs/namespace.c:3642 [inline] do_new_mount fs/namespace.c:3718 [inline] path_mount+0x5b8/0x1ea0 fs/namespace.c:4028 do_mount fs/namespace.c:4041 [inline] __do_sys_mount fs/namespace.c:4229 [inline] __se_sys_mount fs/namespace.c:4206 [inline] __x64_sys_mount+0x282/0x320 fs/namespace.c:4206 ... RIP: 0033:0x7f969c9a8fde Code: 0f1f4000 48c7c2b0 fffffff7 d8648902 b8ffffff ffc3660f ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- The bug is reproducible on 7.0.0-rc2-next-20260310 with our dynamic metadata fuzzing tool that corrupts btrfs metadata at runtime. [CAUSE] A non-zero drop_progress.objectid means an interrupted btrfs_drop_snapshot() left a resume point on disk, and in that case drop_level must be greater than 0 because the checkpoint is only saved at internal node levels. Although this invariant is enforced when the kernel writes the root item, it is not validated when the root item is read back from disk. That allows on-disk corruption to provide an invalid state with drop_progress.objectid != 0 and drop_level == 0. When relocation recovery later processes such a root item, merge_reloc_root() reads drop_level and hits BUG_ON(level == 0). The same invalid metadata can also trigger the corresponding BUG_ON() in btrfs_drop_snapshot(). [FIX] Fix this by validating the root_item invariant in tree-checker when reading root items from disk: if drop_progress.objectid is non-zero, drop_level must also be non-zero. Reject such malformed metadata with -EUCLEAN before it reaches merge_reloc_root() or btrfs_drop_snapshot() and triggers the BUG_ON. After the fix, the same corruption is correctly rejected by tree-checker and the BUG_ON is no longer triggered.

CVE 信息

相关弱点

CWE-ID 弱点名称 来源
CWE-617 Reachable Assertion
The product contains an assert() or similar statement that can be triggered by an attacker, which leads to an application exit or other behavior that is more severe than necessary.

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) 2.6.29 至(不含) 5.15.203

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 从(含) 5.16 至(不含) 6.1.168

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 从(含) 6.2 至(不含) 6.6.134

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 从(含) 6.7 至(不含) 6.12.81

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 从(含) 6.13 至(不含) 6.18.22

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 从(含) 6.19 至(不含) 6.19.12

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 7.0

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 7.0

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 7.0

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 7.0

参考资料