In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
nbd: fix incomplete validation of ioctl arg
We tested and found an alarm caused by nbd_ioctl arg without verification.
The UBSAN warning calltrace like below:
UBSAN: Undefined behaviour in fs/buffer.c:1709:35
signed integer overflow:
-9223372036854775808 - 1 cannot be represented in type 'long long int'
CPU: 3 PID: 2523 Comm: syz-executor.0 Not tainted 4.19.90 #1
Hardware name: linux,dummy-virt (DT)
Call trace:
dump_backtrace+0x0/0x3f0 arch/arm64/kernel/time.c:78
show_stack+0x28/0x38 arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c:158
__dump_stack lib/dump_stack.c:77 [inline]
dump_stack+0x170/0x1dc lib/dump_stack.c:118
ubsan_epilogue+0x18/0xb4 lib/ubsan.c:161
handle_overflow+0x188/0x1dc lib/ubsan.c:192
__ubsan_handle_sub_overflow+0x34/0x44 lib/ubsan.c:206
__block_write_full_page+0x94c/0xa20 fs/buffer.c:1709
block_write_full_page+0x1f0/0x280 fs/buffer.c:2934
blkdev_writepage+0x34/0x40 fs/block_dev.c:607
__writepage+0x68/0xe8 mm/page-writeback.c:2305
write_cache_pages+0x44c/0xc70 mm/page-writeback.c:2240
generic_writepages+0xdc/0x148 mm/page-writeback.c:2329
blkdev_writepages+0x2c/0x38 fs/block_dev.c:2114
do_writepages+0xd4/0x250 mm/page-writeback.c:2344
The reason for triggering this warning is __block_write_full_page()
-> i_size_read(inode) - 1 overflow.
inode->i_size is assigned in __nbd_ioctl() -> nbd_set_size() -> bytesize.
We think it is necessary to limit the size of arg to prevent errors.
Moreover, __nbd_ioctl() -> nbd_add_socket(), arg will be cast to int.
Assuming the value of arg is 0x80000000000000001) (on a 64-bit machine),
it will become 1 after the coercion, which will return unexpected results.
Fix it by adding checks to prevent passing in too large numbers.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (5.5): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 5.5 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 5.5 MEDIUMCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.1% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS. FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
- Confirmed exploitation
- None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
- EG Priority
- SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at every mission impact level.CISA BOD 26-04: 60 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at every mission impact level.
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table
BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)60 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it