s_umount semaphore before calling writeback_inodes_sb(), because that would at least deadlock with filesystem freezing, since at fs/super.c:freeze_super() sync_filesystem() is called while we are holding that semaphore in write mode, and that can trigger a transaction commit, resulting in a deadlock. It would also trigger the same type of deadlock in the unmount path. Possibly, it could also introduce some other locking dependencies that lockdep would report. To fix this call try_to_writeback_inodes_sb() instead of writeback_inodes_sb(), because that will try to read lock sb->s_umount and then will only call writeback_inodes_sb() if it was able to lock it. This is fine because the cases where it can't read lock sb->s_umount are during a filesystem unmount or during a filesystem freeze - in those cases sb->s_umount is write locked and sync_filesystem() is called, which calls writeback_inodes_sb(). In other words, in all cases where we can't take a read lock on sb->s_umount, writeback is already being triggered elsewhere. An alternative would be to call btrfs_start_delalloc_roots() with a number of pages different from LONG_MAX, for example matching the number of delalloc bytes we currently have, in ---truncated---">

CVE-2022-48920 : Detail

CVE-2022-48920

5.5
/
Medium
0.04%V3
Local
2024-08-22
01h32 +00:00
2024-12-19
08h10 +00:00
CVE.org
NVD
Notifications for a CVE
Stay informed of any changes for a specific CVE.
Notifications manage

CVE Descriptions

btrfs: get rid of warning on transaction commit when using flushoncommit

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: btrfs: get rid of warning on transaction commit when using flushoncommit When using the flushoncommit mount option, during almost every transaction commit we trigger a warning from __writeback_inodes_sb_nr(): $ cat fs/fs-writeback.c: (...) static void __writeback_inodes_sb_nr(struct super_block *sb, ... { (...) WARN_ON(!rwsem_is_locked(&sb->s_umount)); (...) } (...) The trace produced in dmesg looks like the following: [947.473890] WARNING: CPU: 5 PID: 930 at fs/fs-writeback.c:2610 __writeback_inodes_sb_nr+0x7e/0xb3 [947.481623] Modules linked in: nfsd nls_cp437 cifs asn1_decoder cifs_arc4 fscache cifs_md4 ipmi_ssif [947.489571] CPU: 5 PID: 930 Comm: btrfs-transacti Not tainted 95.16.3-srb-asrock-00001-g36437ad63879 #186 [947.497969] RIP: 0010:__writeback_inodes_sb_nr+0x7e/0xb3 [947.502097] Code: 24 10 4c 89 44 24 18 c6 (...) [947.519760] RSP: 0018:ffffc90000777e10 EFLAGS: 00010246 [947.523818] RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: 0000000000963300 RCX: 0000000000000000 [947.529765] RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 000000000000fa51 RDI: ffffc90000777e50 [947.535740] RBP: ffff888101628a90 R08: ffff888100955800 R09: ffff888100956000 [947.541701] R10: 0000000000000002 R11: 0000000000000001 R12: ffff888100963488 [947.547645] R13: ffff888100963000 R14: ffff888112fb7200 R15: ffff888100963460 [947.553621] FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff88841fd40000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 [947.560537] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 [947.565122] CR2: 0000000008be50c4 CR3: 000000000220c000 CR4: 00000000001006e0 [947.571072] Call Trace: [947.572354] [947.573266] btrfs_commit_transaction+0x1f1/0x998 [947.576785] ? start_transaction+0x3ab/0x44e [947.579867] ? schedule_timeout+0x8a/0xdd [947.582716] transaction_kthread+0xe9/0x156 [947.585721] ? btrfs_cleanup_transaction.isra.0+0x407/0x407 [947.590104] kthread+0x131/0x139 [947.592168] ? set_kthread_struct+0x32/0x32 [947.595174] ret_from_fork+0x22/0x30 [947.597561] [947.598553] ---[ end trace 644721052755541c ]--- This is because we started using writeback_inodes_sb() to flush delalloc when committing a transaction (when using -o flushoncommit), in order to avoid deadlocks with filesystem freeze operations. This change was made by commit ce8ea7cc6eb313 ("btrfs: don't call btrfs_start_delalloc_roots in flushoncommit"). After that change we started producing that warning, and every now and then a user reports this since the warning happens too often, it spams dmesg/syslog, and a user is unsure if this reflects any problem that might compromise the filesystem's reliability. We can not just lock the sb->s_umount semaphore before calling writeback_inodes_sb(), because that would at least deadlock with filesystem freezing, since at fs/super.c:freeze_super() sync_filesystem() is called while we are holding that semaphore in write mode, and that can trigger a transaction commit, resulting in a deadlock. It would also trigger the same type of deadlock in the unmount path. Possibly, it could also introduce some other locking dependencies that lockdep would report. To fix this call try_to_writeback_inodes_sb() instead of writeback_inodes_sb(), because that will try to read lock sb->s_umount and then will only call writeback_inodes_sb() if it was able to lock it. This is fine because the cases where it can't read lock sb->s_umount are during a filesystem unmount or during a filesystem freeze - in those cases sb->s_umount is write locked and sync_filesystem() is called, which calls writeback_inodes_sb(). In other words, in all cases where we can't take a read lock on sb->s_umount, writeback is already being triggered elsewhere. An alternative would be to call btrfs_start_delalloc_roots() with a number of pages different from LONG_MAX, for example matching the number of delalloc bytes we currently have, in ---truncated---

CVE Informations

Related Weaknesses

CWE-ID Weakness Name Source
CWE-667 Improper Locking
The product does not properly acquire or release a lock on a resource, leading to unexpected resource state changes and behaviors.

Metrics

Metrics Score Severity CVSS Vector Source
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.

 [email protected]

EPSS

EPSS is a scoring model that predicts the likelihood of a vulnerability being exploited.

EPSS Score

The EPSS model produces a probability score between 0 and 1 (0 and 100%). The higher the score, the greater the probability that a vulnerability will be exploited.

EPSS Percentile

The percentile is used to rank CVE according to their EPSS score. For example, a CVE in the 95th percentile according to its EPSS score is more likely to be exploited than 95% of other CVE. Thus, the percentile is used to compare the EPSS score of a CVE with that of other CVE.
EPSS First.org

Products Mentioned

Configuraton 0

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version To (excluding) 5.15.27

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.16 To (excluding) 5.16.13

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 5.17

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 5.17

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 5.17

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 5.17

References