CVE-2024-26726 : Détail

CVE-2024-26726

5.5
/
Moyen
0.05%V3
Local
2024-04-03
14h55 +00:00
2024-12-19
08h45 +00:00
CVE.org
NVD
Notifications pour un CVE
Restez informé de toutes modifications pour un CVE spécifique.
Gestion des notifications

Descriptions du CVE

btrfs: don't drop extent_map for free space inode on write error

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: btrfs: don't drop extent_map for free space inode on write error While running the CI for an unrelated change I hit the following panic with generic/648 on btrfs_holes_spacecache. assertion failed: block_start != EXTENT_MAP_HOLE, in fs/btrfs/extent_io.c:1385 ------------[ cut here ]------------ kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/extent_io.c:1385! invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP NOPTI CPU: 1 PID: 2695096 Comm: fsstress Kdump: loaded Tainted: G W 6.8.0-rc2+ #1 RIP: 0010:__extent_writepage_io.constprop.0+0x4c1/0x5c0 Call Trace: extent_write_cache_pages+0x2ac/0x8f0 extent_writepages+0x87/0x110 do_writepages+0xd5/0x1f0 filemap_fdatawrite_wbc+0x63/0x90 __filemap_fdatawrite_range+0x5c/0x80 btrfs_fdatawrite_range+0x1f/0x50 btrfs_write_out_cache+0x507/0x560 btrfs_write_dirty_block_groups+0x32a/0x420 commit_cowonly_roots+0x21b/0x290 btrfs_commit_transaction+0x813/0x1360 btrfs_sync_file+0x51a/0x640 __x64_sys_fdatasync+0x52/0x90 do_syscall_64+0x9c/0x190 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x6e/0x76 This happens because we fail to write out the free space cache in one instance, come back around and attempt to write it again. However on the second pass through we go to call btrfs_get_extent() on the inode to get the extent mapping. Because this is a new block group, and with the free space inode we always search the commit root to avoid deadlocking with the tree, we find nothing and return a EXTENT_MAP_HOLE for the requested range. This happens because the first time we try to write the space cache out we hit an error, and on an error we drop the extent mapping. This is normal for normal files, but the free space cache inode is special. We always expect the extent map to be correct. Thus the second time through we end up with a bogus extent map. Since we're deprecating this feature, the most straightforward way to fix this is to simply skip dropping the extent map range for this failed range. I shortened the test by using error injection to stress the area to make it easier to reproduce. With this patch in place we no longer panic with my error injection test.

Informations du CVE

Faiblesses connexes

CWE-ID Nom de la faiblesse Source
CWE-617 Reachable Assertion
The product contains an assert() or similar statement that can be triggered by an attacker, which leads to an application exit or other behavior that is more severe than necessary.

Métriques

Métriques Score Gravité CVSS Vecteur 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 est un modèle de notation qui prédit la probabilité qu'une vulnérabilité soit exploitée.

Score EPSS

Le modèle EPSS produit un score de probabilité compris entre 0 et 1 (0 et 100 %). Plus la note est élevée, plus la probabilité qu'une vulnérabilité soit exploitée est grande.

Percentile EPSS

Le percentile est utilisé pour classer les CVE en fonction de leur score EPSS. Par exemple, une CVE dans le 95e percentile selon son score EPSS est plus susceptible d'être exploitée que 95 % des autres CVE. Ainsi, le percentile sert à comparer le score EPSS d'une CVE par rapport à d'autres CVE.
EPSS First.org

Products Mentioned

Configuraton 0

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version To (excluding) 6.1.79

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.2 To (excluding) 6.6.18

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.7 To (excluding) 6.7.6

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.8

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.8

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.8

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.8

Références