/proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message. task:segctord state:D stack:23456 pid:5067 ppid:2 flags:0x00004000 Call Trace: context_switch kernel/sched/core.c:5293 [inline] __schedule+0x1409/0x43f0 kernel/sched/core.c:6606 schedule+0xc3/0x190 kernel/sched/core.c:6682 rwsem_down_write_slowpath+0xfcf/0x14a0 kernel/locking/rwsem.c:1190 nilfs_transaction_lock+0x25c/0x4f0 fs/nilfs2/segment.c:357 nilfs_segctor_thread_construct fs/nilfs2/segment.c:2486 [inline] nilfs_segctor_thread+0x52f/0x1140 fs/nilfs2/segment.c:2570 kthread+0x270/0x300 kernel/kthread.c:376 ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30 arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:308 ... Call Trace: folio_mark_accessed+0x51c/0xf00 mm/swap.c:515 __nilfs_get_page_block fs/nilfs2/page.c:42 [inline] nilfs_grab_buffer+0x3d3/0x540 fs/nilfs2/page.c:61 nilfs_mdt_submit_block+0xd7/0x8f0 fs/nilfs2/mdt.c:121 nilfs_mdt_read_block+0xeb/0x430 fs/nilfs2/mdt.c:176 nilfs_mdt_get_block+0x12d/0xbb0 fs/nilfs2/mdt.c:251 nilfs_sufile_get_segment_usage_block fs/nilfs2/sufile.c:92 [inline] nilfs_sufile_truncate_range fs/nilfs2/sufile.c:679 [inline] nilfs_sufile_resize+0x7a3/0x12b0 fs/nilfs2/sufile.c:777 nilfs_resize_fs+0x20c/0xed0 fs/nilfs2/super.c:422 nilfs_ioctl_resize fs/nilfs2/ioctl.c:1033 [inline] nilfs_ioctl+0x137c/0x2440 fs/nilfs2/ioctl.c:1301 ... This fixes these issues by inserting appropriate minimum device size checks or anti-underflow checks, depending on where the macro is used.">

CVE-2023-52705 : Detail

CVE-2023-52705

5.5
/
Medium
0.04%V3
Local
2024-05-21
15h22 +00:00
2024-12-19
08h24 +00:00
CVE.org
NVD
Notifications for a CVE
Stay informed of any changes for a specific CVE.
Notifications manage

CVE Descriptions

nilfs2: fix underflow in second superblock position calculations

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: nilfs2: fix underflow in second superblock position calculations Macro NILFS_SB2_OFFSET_BYTES, which computes the position of the second superblock, underflows when the argument device size is less than 4096 bytes. Therefore, when using this macro, it is necessary to check in advance that the device size is not less than a lower limit, or at least that underflow does not occur. The current nilfs2 implementation lacks this check, causing out-of-bound block access when mounting devices smaller than 4096 bytes: I/O error, dev loop0, sector 36028797018963960 op 0x0:(READ) flags 0x0 phys_seg 1 prio class 2 NILFS (loop0): unable to read secondary superblock (blocksize = 1024) In addition, when trying to resize the filesystem to a size below 4096 bytes, this underflow occurs in nilfs_resize_fs(), passing a huge number of segments to nilfs_sufile_resize(), corrupting parameters such as the number of segments in superblocks. This causes excessive loop iterations in nilfs_sufile_resize() during a subsequent resize ioctl, causing semaphore ns_segctor_sem to block for a long time and hang the writer thread: INFO: task segctord:5067 blocked for more than 143 seconds. Not tainted 6.2.0-rc8-syzkaller-00015-gf6feea56f66d #0 "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message. task:segctord state:D stack:23456 pid:5067 ppid:2 flags:0x00004000 Call Trace: context_switch kernel/sched/core.c:5293 [inline] __schedule+0x1409/0x43f0 kernel/sched/core.c:6606 schedule+0xc3/0x190 kernel/sched/core.c:6682 rwsem_down_write_slowpath+0xfcf/0x14a0 kernel/locking/rwsem.c:1190 nilfs_transaction_lock+0x25c/0x4f0 fs/nilfs2/segment.c:357 nilfs_segctor_thread_construct fs/nilfs2/segment.c:2486 [inline] nilfs_segctor_thread+0x52f/0x1140 fs/nilfs2/segment.c:2570 kthread+0x270/0x300 kernel/kthread.c:376 ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30 arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:308 ... Call Trace: folio_mark_accessed+0x51c/0xf00 mm/swap.c:515 __nilfs_get_page_block fs/nilfs2/page.c:42 [inline] nilfs_grab_buffer+0x3d3/0x540 fs/nilfs2/page.c:61 nilfs_mdt_submit_block+0xd7/0x8f0 fs/nilfs2/mdt.c:121 nilfs_mdt_read_block+0xeb/0x430 fs/nilfs2/mdt.c:176 nilfs_mdt_get_block+0x12d/0xbb0 fs/nilfs2/mdt.c:251 nilfs_sufile_get_segment_usage_block fs/nilfs2/sufile.c:92 [inline] nilfs_sufile_truncate_range fs/nilfs2/sufile.c:679 [inline] nilfs_sufile_resize+0x7a3/0x12b0 fs/nilfs2/sufile.c:777 nilfs_resize_fs+0x20c/0xed0 fs/nilfs2/super.c:422 nilfs_ioctl_resize fs/nilfs2/ioctl.c:1033 [inline] nilfs_ioctl+0x137c/0x2440 fs/nilfs2/ioctl.c:1301 ... This fixes these issues by inserting appropriate minimum device size checks or anti-underflow checks, depending on where the macro is used.

CVE Informations

Related Weaknesses

CWE-ID Weakness Name Source
CWE-191 Integer Underflow (Wrap or Wraparound)
The product subtracts one value from another, such that the result is less than the minimum allowable integer value, which produces a value that is not equal to the correct result.

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) 4.14.306

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 4.15 To (excluding) 4.19.273

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 4.20 To (excluding) 5.4.232

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.5 To (excluding) 5.10.169

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.11 To (excluding) 5.15.95

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.16 To (excluding) 6.1.13

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.2

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.2

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.2

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.2

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.2

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.2

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.2

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.2

References