? __warn+0x12a/0x1d0 ? __fortify_report+0x45/0x50 ? report_bug+0x154/0x1c0 ? handle_bug+0x42/0x70 ? exc_invalid_op+0x1a/0x50 ? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x1a/0x20 ? __fortify_report+0x45/0x50 __fortify_panic+0x9/0x10 __get_cur_name_and_parent+0x3bc/0x3c0 get_cur_path+0x207/0x3b0 send_extent_data+0x709/0x10d0 ? find_parent_nodes+0x22df/0x25d0 ? mas_nomem+0x13/0x90 ? mtree_insert_range+0xa5/0x110 ? btrfs_lru_cache_store+0x5f/0x1e0 ? iterate_extent_inodes+0x52d/0x5a0 process_extent+0xa96/0x11a0 ? __pfx_lookup_backref_cache+0x10/0x10 ? __pfx_store_backref_cache+0x10/0x10 ? __pfx_iterate_backrefs+0x10/0x10 ? __pfx_check_extent_item+0x10/0x10 changed_cb+0x6fa/0x930 ? tree_advance+0x362/0x390 ? memcmp_extent_buffer+0xd7/0x160 send_subvol+0xf0a/0x1520 btrfs_ioctl_send+0x106b/0x11d0 ? __pfx___clone_root_cmp_sort+0x10/0x10 _btrfs_ioctl_send+0x1ac/0x240 btrfs_ioctl+0x75b/0x850 __se_sys_ioctl+0xca/0x150 do_syscall_64+0x85/0x160 ? __count_memcg_events+0x69/0x100 ? handle_mm_fault+0x1327/0x15c0 ? __se_sys_rt_sigprocmask+0xf1/0x180 ? syscall_exit_to_user_mode+0x75/0xa0 ? do_syscall_64+0x91/0x160 ? do_user_addr_fault+0x21d/0x630 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e RIP: 0033:0x7fae145eeb4f Code: 00 48 89 (...) RSP: 002b:00007ffdf1cb09b0 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000010 RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000000000000004 RCX: 00007fae145eeb4f RDX: 00007ffdf1cb0ad0 RSI: 0000000040489426 RDI: 0000000000000004 RBP: 00000000000078fe R08: 00007fae144006c0 R09: 00007ffdf1cb0927 R10: 0000000000000008 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 00007ffdf1cb1ce8 R13: 0000000000000003 R14: 000055c499fab2e0 R15: 0000000000000004 Fix this by not storing the NUL string terminator since we don't actually need it for name cache entries, this way "name_len" corresponds to the actual size of the "name" array. This requires marking the "name" array field with __nonstring and using memcpy() instead of strcpy() as recommended by the guidelines at: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/90">

CVE-2024-49869 : Detail

CVE-2024-49869

7.8
/
High
Overflow
0.04%V3
Local
2024-10-21
18h01 +00:00
2024-12-19
09h27 +00:00
Notifications for a CVE
Stay informed of any changes for a specific CVE.
Notifications manage

CVE Descriptions

btrfs: send: fix buffer overflow detection when copying path to cache entry

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: btrfs: send: fix buffer overflow detection when copying path to cache entry Starting with commit c0247d289e73 ("btrfs: send: annotate struct name_cache_entry with __counted_by()") we annotated the variable length array "name" from the name_cache_entry structure with __counted_by() to improve overflow detection. However that alone was not correct, because the length of that array does not match the "name_len" field - it matches that plus 1 to include the NUL string terminator, so that makes a fortified kernel think there's an overflow and report a splat like this: strcpy: detected buffer overflow: 20 byte write of buffer size 19 WARNING: CPU: 3 PID: 3310 at __fortify_report+0x45/0x50 CPU: 3 UID: 0 PID: 3310 Comm: btrfs Not tainted 6.11.0-prnet #1 Hardware name: CompuLab Ltd. sbc-ihsw/Intense-PC2 (IPC2), BIOS IPC2_3.330.7 X64 03/15/2018 RIP: 0010:__fortify_report+0x45/0x50 Code: 48 8b 34 (...) RSP: 0018:ffff97ebc0d6f650 EFLAGS: 00010246 RAX: 7749924ef60fa600 RBX: ffff8bf5446a521a RCX: 0000000000000027 RDX: 00000000ffffdfff RSI: ffff97ebc0d6f548 RDI: ffff8bf84e7a1cc8 RBP: ffff8bf548574080 R08: ffffffffa8c40e10 R09: 0000000000005ffd R10: 0000000000000004 R11: ffffffffa8c70e10 R12: ffff8bf551eef400 R13: 0000000000000000 R14: 0000000000000013 R15: 00000000000003a8 FS: 00007fae144de8c0(0000) GS:ffff8bf84e780000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 CR2: 00007fae14691690 CR3: 00000001027a2003 CR4: 00000000001706f0 Call Trace: ? __warn+0x12a/0x1d0 ? __fortify_report+0x45/0x50 ? report_bug+0x154/0x1c0 ? handle_bug+0x42/0x70 ? exc_invalid_op+0x1a/0x50 ? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x1a/0x20 ? __fortify_report+0x45/0x50 __fortify_panic+0x9/0x10 __get_cur_name_and_parent+0x3bc/0x3c0 get_cur_path+0x207/0x3b0 send_extent_data+0x709/0x10d0 ? find_parent_nodes+0x22df/0x25d0 ? mas_nomem+0x13/0x90 ? mtree_insert_range+0xa5/0x110 ? btrfs_lru_cache_store+0x5f/0x1e0 ? iterate_extent_inodes+0x52d/0x5a0 process_extent+0xa96/0x11a0 ? __pfx_lookup_backref_cache+0x10/0x10 ? __pfx_store_backref_cache+0x10/0x10 ? __pfx_iterate_backrefs+0x10/0x10 ? __pfx_check_extent_item+0x10/0x10 changed_cb+0x6fa/0x930 ? tree_advance+0x362/0x390 ? memcmp_extent_buffer+0xd7/0x160 send_subvol+0xf0a/0x1520 btrfs_ioctl_send+0x106b/0x11d0 ? __pfx___clone_root_cmp_sort+0x10/0x10 _btrfs_ioctl_send+0x1ac/0x240 btrfs_ioctl+0x75b/0x850 __se_sys_ioctl+0xca/0x150 do_syscall_64+0x85/0x160 ? __count_memcg_events+0x69/0x100 ? handle_mm_fault+0x1327/0x15c0 ? __se_sys_rt_sigprocmask+0xf1/0x180 ? syscall_exit_to_user_mode+0x75/0xa0 ? do_syscall_64+0x91/0x160 ? do_user_addr_fault+0x21d/0x630 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e RIP: 0033:0x7fae145eeb4f Code: 00 48 89 (...) RSP: 002b:00007ffdf1cb09b0 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000010 RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000000000000004 RCX: 00007fae145eeb4f RDX: 00007ffdf1cb0ad0 RSI: 0000000040489426 RDI: 0000000000000004 RBP: 00000000000078fe R08: 00007fae144006c0 R09: 00007ffdf1cb0927 R10: 0000000000000008 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 00007ffdf1cb1ce8 R13: 0000000000000003 R14: 000055c499fab2e0 R15: 0000000000000004 Fix this by not storing the NUL string terminator since we don't actually need it for name cache entries, this way "name_len" corresponds to the actual size of the "name" array. This requires marking the "name" array field with __nonstring and using memcpy() instead of strcpy() as recommended by the guidelines at: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/90

CVE Informations

Related Weaknesses

CWE-ID Weakness Name Source
CWE-120 Buffer Copy without Checking Size of Input ('Classic Buffer Overflow')
The product copies an input buffer to an output buffer without verifying that the size of the input buffer is less than the size of the output buffer, leading to a buffer overflow.

Metrics

Metrics Score Severity CVSS Vector Source
V3.1 7.8 HIGH CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/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.

High

There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server.

Integrity Impact

This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information.

High

There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to 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.

Products Mentioned

Configuraton 0

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.11 To (excluding) 6.11.3

References