In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ext4: avoid journaling sb update on error if journal is destroying
Presently we always BUG_ON if trying to start a transaction on a journal marked
with JBD2_UNMOUNT, since this should never happen. However, while ltp running
stress tests, it was observed that in case of some error handling paths, it is
possible for update_super_work to start a transaction after the journal is
destroyed eg:
(umount)
ext4_kill_sb
kill_block_super
generic_shutdown_super
sync_filesystem /* commits all txns */
evict_inodes
/* might start a new txn */
ext4_put_super
flush_work(&sbi->s_sb_upd_work) /* flush the workqueue */
jbd2_journal_destroy
journal_kill_thread
journal->j_flags |= JBD2_UNMOUNT;
jbd2_journal_commit_transaction
jbd2_journal_get_descriptor_buffer
jbd2_journal_bmap
ext4_journal_bmap
ext4_map_blocks
...
ext4_inode_error
ext4_handle_error
schedule_work(&sbi->s_sb_upd_work)
/* work queue kicks in */
update_super_work
jbd2_journal_start
start_this_handle
BUG_ON(journal->j_flags &
JBD2_UNMOUNT)
Hence, introduce a new mount flag to indicate journal is destroying and only do
a journaled (and deferred) update of sb if this flag is not set. Otherwise, just
fallback to an un-journaled commit.
Further, in the journal destroy path, we have the following sequence:
- Set mount flag indicating journal is destroying
- force a commit and wait for it
- flush pending sb updates
This sequence is important as it ensures that, after this point, there is no sb
update that might be journaled so it is safe to update the sb outside the
journal. (To avoid race discussed in 2d01ddc86606)
Also, we don't need a similar check in ext4_grp_locked_error since it is only
called from mballoc and AFAICT it would be always valid to schedule work here.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from 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)14 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's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). Where an input reads “CISA's BOD 26-04 default”, no one has published it for this CVE, and CISA's implementation guidance says: “If “Automatable” and “Technical Impact” information items about a CVE ID are not available and the CVE ID is not in the KEV Catalog, CISA will treat its values as “no” and “total,” respectively, until CISA or a third party provides metadata about the CVE ID. CISA will always provide the Vulnrichment data for a CVE ID listed in the KEV Catalog.” 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