CVE-2024-50118 : Detail

CVE-2024-50118

5.5
/
Medium
Memory Corruption
0.03%V4
Local
2024-11-05
17h10 +00:00
2024-12-19
09h33 +00:00
CVE.org
NVD
Notifications for a CVE
Stay informed of any changes for a specific CVE.
Notifications manage

CVE Descriptions

btrfs: reject ro->rw reconfiguration if there are hard ro requirements

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: btrfs: reject ro->rw reconfiguration if there are hard ro requirements [BUG] Syzbot reports the following crash: BTRFS info (device loop0 state MCS): disabling free space tree BTRFS info (device loop0 state MCS): clearing compat-ro feature flag for FREE_SPACE_TREE (0x1) BTRFS info (device loop0 state MCS): clearing compat-ro feature flag for FREE_SPACE_TREE_VALID (0x2) Oops: general protection fault, probably for non-canonical address 0xdffffc0000000003: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP KASAN NOPTI KASAN: null-ptr-deref in range [0x0000000000000018-0x000000000000001f] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS 1.16.3-debian-1.16.3-2~bpo12+1 04/01/2014 RIP: 0010:backup_super_roots fs/btrfs/disk-io.c:1691 [inline] RIP: 0010:write_all_supers+0x97a/0x40f0 fs/btrfs/disk-io.c:4041 Call Trace: btrfs_commit_transaction+0x1eae/0x3740 fs/btrfs/transaction.c:2530 btrfs_delete_free_space_tree+0x383/0x730 fs/btrfs/free-space-tree.c:1312 btrfs_start_pre_rw_mount+0xf28/0x1300 fs/btrfs/disk-io.c:3012 btrfs_remount_rw fs/btrfs/super.c:1309 [inline] btrfs_reconfigure+0xae6/0x2d40 fs/btrfs/super.c:1534 btrfs_reconfigure_for_mount fs/btrfs/super.c:2020 [inline] btrfs_get_tree_subvol fs/btrfs/super.c:2079 [inline] btrfs_get_tree+0x918/0x1920 fs/btrfs/super.c:2115 vfs_get_tree+0x90/0x2b0 fs/super.c:1800 do_new_mount+0x2be/0xb40 fs/namespace.c:3472 do_mount fs/namespace.c:3812 [inline] __do_sys_mount fs/namespace.c:4020 [inline] __se_sys_mount+0x2d6/0x3c0 fs/namespace.c:3997 do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:52 [inline] do_syscall_64+0xf3/0x230 arch/x86/entry/common.c:83 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x77/0x7f [CAUSE] To support mounting different subvolume with different RO/RW flags for the new mount APIs, btrfs introduced two workaround to support this feature: - Skip mount option/feature checks if we are mounting a different subvolume - Reconfigure the fs to RW if the initial mount is RO Combining these two, we can have the following sequence: - Mount the fs ro,rescue=all,clear_cache,space_cache=v1 rescue=all will mark the fs as hard read-only, so no v2 cache clearing will happen. - Mount a subvolume rw of the same fs. We go into btrfs_get_tree_subvol(), but fc_mount() returns EBUSY because our new fc is RW, different from the original fs. Now we enter btrfs_reconfigure_for_mount(), which switches the RO flag first so that we can grab the existing fs_info. Then we reconfigure the fs to RW. - During reconfiguration, option/features check is skipped This means we will restart the v2 cache clearing, and convert back to v1 cache. This will trigger fs writes, and since the original fs has "rescue=all" option, it skips the csum tree read. And eventually causing NULL pointer dereference in super block writeback. [FIX] For reconfiguration caused by different subvolume RO/RW flags, ensure we always run btrfs_check_options() to ensure we have proper hard RO requirements met. In fact the function btrfs_check_options() doesn't really do many complex checks, but hard RO requirement and some feature dependency checks, thus there is no special reason not to do the check for mount reconfiguration.

CVE Informations

Related Weaknesses

CWE-ID Weakness Name Source
CWE-476 NULL Pointer Dereference
The product dereferences a pointer that it expects to be valid but is NULL.

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.

 nvd@nist.gov

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 From (including) 6.8 To (excluding) 6.11.6

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.12

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.12

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.12

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.12

References

The information presented on CVE Find originates from several carefully selected reference sources. CVE data is provided by MITRE Corporation and the National Vulnerability Database (NVD). The Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog is sourced from the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), while EPSS scores come from FIRST.org. Additionally, data regarding software weaknesses (CWE) and common attack patterns (CAPEC) is maintained by MITRE Corporation, and information on hardware and software configurations (CPE) is provided by the NVD.