? __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">
Weakness Name | Source | |
---|---|---|
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 | 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
More informations
Base: Exploitabilty MetricsThe 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 MetricsThe 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 MetricsThe 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 MetricsThe 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 MetricsThese 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] |
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.11 To (excluding) 6.11.3