CVE-2024-26644 : Detail

CVE-2024-26644

5.5
/
Medium
0.04%V3
Local
2024-03-26
15h17 +00:00
2024-12-19
08h44 +00:00
CVE.org
NVD
Notifications for a CVE
Stay informed of any changes for a specific CVE.
Notifications manage

CVE Descriptions

btrfs: don't abort filesystem when attempting to snapshot deleted subvolume

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: btrfs: don't abort filesystem when attempting to snapshot deleted subvolume If the source file descriptor to the snapshot ioctl refers to a deleted subvolume, we get the following abort: BTRFS: Transaction aborted (error -2) WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 833 at fs/btrfs/transaction.c:1875 create_pending_snapshot+0x1040/0x1190 [btrfs] Modules linked in: pata_acpi btrfs ata_piix libata scsi_mod virtio_net blake2b_generic xor net_failover virtio_rng failover scsi_common rng_core raid6_pq libcrc32c CPU: 0 PID: 833 Comm: t_snapshot_dele Not tainted 6.7.0-rc6 #2 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.16.3-1.fc39 04/01/2014 RIP: 0010:create_pending_snapshot+0x1040/0x1190 [btrfs] RSP: 0018:ffffa09c01337af8 EFLAGS: 00010282 RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: ffff9982053e7c78 RCX: 0000000000000027 RDX: ffff99827dc20848 RSI: 0000000000000001 RDI: ffff99827dc20840 RBP: ffffa09c01337c00 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: ffffa09c01337998 R10: 0000000000000003 R11: ffffffffb96da248 R12: fffffffffffffffe R13: ffff99820535bb28 R14: ffff99820b7bd000 R15: ffff99820381ea80 FS: 00007fe20aadabc0(0000) GS:ffff99827dc00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 CR2: 0000559a120b502f CR3: 00000000055b6000 CR4: 00000000000006f0 Call Trace: ? create_pending_snapshot+0x1040/0x1190 [btrfs] ? __warn+0x81/0x130 ? create_pending_snapshot+0x1040/0x1190 [btrfs] ? report_bug+0x171/0x1a0 ? handle_bug+0x3a/0x70 ? exc_invalid_op+0x17/0x70 ? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x1a/0x20 ? create_pending_snapshot+0x1040/0x1190 [btrfs] ? create_pending_snapshot+0x1040/0x1190 [btrfs] create_pending_snapshots+0x92/0xc0 [btrfs] btrfs_commit_transaction+0x66b/0xf40 [btrfs] btrfs_mksubvol+0x301/0x4d0 [btrfs] btrfs_mksnapshot+0x80/0xb0 [btrfs] __btrfs_ioctl_snap_create+0x1c2/0x1d0 [btrfs] btrfs_ioctl_snap_create_v2+0xc4/0x150 [btrfs] btrfs_ioctl+0x8a6/0x2650 [btrfs] ? kmem_cache_free+0x22/0x340 ? do_sys_openat2+0x97/0xe0 __x64_sys_ioctl+0x97/0xd0 do_syscall_64+0x46/0xf0 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x6e/0x76 RIP: 0033:0x7fe20abe83af RSP: 002b:00007ffe6eff1360 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000010 RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000000000000004 RCX: 00007fe20abe83af RDX: 00007ffe6eff23c0 RSI: 0000000050009417 RDI: 0000000000000003 RBP: 0000000000000003 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 00007fe20ad16cd0 R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 0000000000000000 R13: 00007ffe6eff13c0 R14: 00007fe20ad45000 R15: 0000559a120b6d58 ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- BTRFS: error (device vdc: state A) in create_pending_snapshot:1875: errno=-2 No such entry BTRFS info (device vdc: state EA): forced readonly BTRFS warning (device vdc: state EA): Skipping commit of aborted transaction. BTRFS: error (device vdc: state EA) in cleanup_transaction:2055: errno=-2 No such entry This happens because create_pending_snapshot() initializes the new root item as a copy of the source root item. This includes the refs field, which is 0 for a deleted subvolume. The call to btrfs_insert_root() therefore inserts a root with refs == 0. btrfs_get_new_fs_root() then finds the root and returns -ENOENT if refs == 0, which causes create_pending_snapshot() to abort. Fix it by checking the source root's refs before attempting the snapshot, but after locking subvol_sem to avoid racing with deletion.

CVE Informations

Related Weaknesses

CWE-ID Weakness Name Source
CWE-908 Use of Uninitialized Resource
The product uses or accesses a resource that has not been initialized.

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) 5.10.210

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.11 To (excluding) 5.15.149

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.16 To (excluding) 6.1.76

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.2 To (excluding) 6.6.15

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.7 To (excluding) 6.7.3

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.8

Configuraton 0

Debian>>Debian_linux >> Version 10.0

References