CVE-2025-38194:詳細資料

CVE-2025-38194

5.5
/
中危
0.05%V4
2025-07-04
13h37 +00:00
Local
2025-11-03
17h35 +00:00
指定 CVE 通知
掌握特定 CVE 的任何變更。
管理通知

CVE 描述

jffs2: check that raw node were preallocated before writing summary

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: jffs2: check that raw node were preallocated before writing summary Syzkaller detected a kernel bug in jffs2_link_node_ref, caused by fault injection in jffs2_prealloc_raw_node_refs. jffs2_sum_write_sumnode doesn't check return value of jffs2_prealloc_raw_node_refs and simply lets any error propagate into jffs2_sum_write_data, which eventually calls jffs2_link_node_ref in order to link the summary to an expectedly allocated node. kernel BUG at fs/jffs2/nodelist.c:592! invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP KASAN NOPTI CPU: 1 PID: 31277 Comm: syz-executor.7 Not tainted 6.1.128-syzkaller-00139-ge10f83ca10a1 #0 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.12.0-1 04/01/2014 RIP: 0010:jffs2_link_node_ref+0x570/0x690 fs/jffs2/nodelist.c:592 Call Trace: jffs2_sum_write_data fs/jffs2/summary.c:841 [inline] jffs2_sum_write_sumnode+0xd1a/0x1da0 fs/jffs2/summary.c:874 jffs2_do_reserve_space+0xa18/0xd60 fs/jffs2/nodemgmt.c:388 jffs2_reserve_space+0x55f/0xaa0 fs/jffs2/nodemgmt.c:197 jffs2_write_inode_range+0x246/0xb50 fs/jffs2/write.c:362 jffs2_write_end+0x726/0x15d0 fs/jffs2/file.c:301 generic_perform_write+0x314/0x5d0 mm/filemap.c:3856 __generic_file_write_iter+0x2ae/0x4d0 mm/filemap.c:3973 generic_file_write_iter+0xe3/0x350 mm/filemap.c:4005 call_write_iter include/linux/fs.h:2265 [inline] do_iter_readv_writev+0x20f/0x3c0 fs/read_write.c:735 do_iter_write+0x186/0x710 fs/read_write.c:861 vfs_iter_write+0x70/0xa0 fs/read_write.c:902 iter_file_splice_write+0x73b/0xc90 fs/splice.c:685 do_splice_from fs/splice.c:763 [inline] direct_splice_actor+0x10c/0x170 fs/splice.c:950 splice_direct_to_actor+0x337/0xa10 fs/splice.c:896 do_splice_direct+0x1a9/0x280 fs/splice.c:1002 do_sendfile+0xb13/0x12c0 fs/read_write.c:1255 __do_sys_sendfile64 fs/read_write.c:1323 [inline] __se_sys_sendfile64 fs/read_write.c:1309 [inline] __x64_sys_sendfile64+0x1cf/0x210 fs/read_write.c:1309 do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:51 [inline] do_syscall_64+0x35/0x80 arch/x86/entry/common.c:81 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x6e/0xd8 Fix this issue by checking return value of jffs2_prealloc_raw_node_refs before calling jffs2_sum_write_data. Found by Linux Verification Center (linuxtesting.org) with Syzkaller.

CVE 資訊

相關弱點

CWE-ID 弱點名稱 來源
CWE Other 暫無資訊。

指標

指標 評分 嚴重程度 CVSS 向量 來源
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 是一種預測漏洞被利用可能性的評分模型。

EPSS 評分

EPSS 模型產生介於 0 到 1(0% 到 100%)之間的概率分數。分數越高,漏洞被利用的概率越大。

EPSS 百分位數

百分位數用於根據 EPSS 分數對 CVE 進行排名。例如,EPSS 評分在第 95 百分位的 CVE 比 95% 的其他 CVE 更有可能被利用。因此,百分位數用於比較某 CVE 的 EPSS 分數與其他 CVE 的相對位置。

相關產品

設定 0

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 從(含) 2.6.18 至(不含) 5.4.295

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 從(含) 5.5 至(不含) 5.10.239

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 從(含) 5.11 至(不含) 5.15.186

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 從(含) 5.16 至(不含) 6.1.142

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 從(含) 6.2 至(不含) 6.6.95

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 從(含) 6.7 至(不含) 6.12.35

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 從(含) 6.13 至(不含) 6.15.4

設定 0

Debian>>Debian_linux >> Version 11.0

參考資料