CVE-2022-48901 : Detail

CVE-2022-48901

5.5
/
Medium
0.04%V3
Local
2024-08-22
01h30 +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: do not start relocation until in progress drops are done

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: btrfs: do not start relocation until in progress drops are done We hit a bug with a recovering relocation on mount for one of our file systems in production. I reproduced this locally by injecting errors into snapshot delete with balance running at the same time. This presented as an error while looking up an extent item WARNING: CPU: 5 PID: 1501 at fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:866 lookup_inline_extent_backref+0x647/0x680 CPU: 5 PID: 1501 Comm: btrfs-balance Not tainted 5.16.0-rc8+ #8 RIP: 0010:lookup_inline_extent_backref+0x647/0x680 RSP: 0018:ffffae0a023ab960 EFLAGS: 00010202 RAX: 0000000000000001 RBX: 0000000000000000 RCX: 0000000000000000 RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 000000000000000c RDI: 0000000000000000 RBP: ffff943fd2a39b60 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000000000001 R10: 0001434088152de0 R11: 0000000000000000 R12: 0000000001d05000 R13: ffff943fd2a39b60 R14: ffff943fdb96f2a0 R15: ffff9442fc923000 FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff944e9eb40000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 CR2: 00007f1157b1fca8 CR3: 000000010f092000 CR4: 0000000000350ee0 Call Trace: insert_inline_extent_backref+0x46/0xd0 __btrfs_inc_extent_ref.isra.0+0x5f/0x200 ? btrfs_merge_delayed_refs+0x164/0x190 __btrfs_run_delayed_refs+0x561/0xfa0 ? btrfs_search_slot+0x7b4/0xb30 ? btrfs_update_root+0x1a9/0x2c0 btrfs_run_delayed_refs+0x73/0x1f0 ? btrfs_update_root+0x1a9/0x2c0 btrfs_commit_transaction+0x50/0xa50 ? btrfs_update_reloc_root+0x122/0x220 prepare_to_merge+0x29f/0x320 relocate_block_group+0x2b8/0x550 btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x1a6/0x350 btrfs_relocate_chunk+0x27/0xe0 btrfs_balance+0x777/0xe60 balance_kthread+0x35/0x50 ? btrfs_balance+0xe60/0xe60 kthread+0x16b/0x190 ? set_kthread_struct+0x40/0x40 ret_from_fork+0x22/0x30 Normally snapshot deletion and relocation are excluded from running at the same time by the fs_info->cleaner_mutex. However if we had a pending balance waiting to get the ->cleaner_mutex, and a snapshot deletion was running, and then the box crashed, we would come up in a state where we have a half deleted snapshot. Again, in the normal case the snapshot deletion needs to complete before relocation can start, but in this case relocation could very well start before the snapshot deletion completes, as we simply add the root to the dead roots list and wait for the next time the cleaner runs to clean up the snapshot. Fix this by setting a bit on the fs_info if we have any DEAD_ROOT's that had a pending drop_progress key. If they do then we know we were in the middle of the drop operation and set a flag on the fs_info. Then balance can wait until this flag is cleared to start up again. If there are DEAD_ROOT's that don't have a drop_progress set then we're safe to start balance right away as we'll be properly protected by the cleaner_mutex.

CVE Informations

Related Weaknesses

CWE-ID Weakness Name Source
CWE Other No informations.

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

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 5.17

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 5.17

References