In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
writeback: don't block sync for filesystems with no data integrity guarantees
Add a SB_I_NO_DATA_INTEGRITY superblock flag for filesystems that cannot
guarantee data persistence on sync (eg fuse). For superblocks with this
flag set, sync kicks off writeback of dirty inodes but does not wait
for the flusher threads to complete the writeback.
This replaces the per-inode AS_NO_DATA_INTEGRITY mapping flag added in
commit f9a49aa302a0 ("fs/writeback: skip AS_NO_DATA_INTEGRITY mappings
in wait_sb_inodes()"). The flag belongs at the superblock level because
data integrity is a filesystem-wide property, not a per-inode one.
Having this flag at the superblock level also allows us to skip having
to iterate every dirty inode in wait_sb_inodes() only to skip each inode
individually.
Prior to this commit, mappings with no data integrity guarantees skipped
waiting on writeback completion but still waited on the flusher threads
to finish initiating the writeback. Waiting on the flusher threads is
unnecessary. This commit kicks off writeback but does not wait on the
flusher threads. This change properly addresses a recent report [1] for
a suspend-to-RAM hang seen on fuse-overlayfs that was caused by waiting
on the flusher threads to finish:
Workqueue: pm_fs_sync pm_fs_sync_work_fn
Call Trace:
__schedule+0x457/0x1720
schedule+0x27/0xd0
wb_wait_for_completion+0x97/0xe0
sync_inodes_sb+0xf8/0x2e0
__iterate_supers+0xdc/0x160
ksys_sync+0x43/0xb0
pm_fs_sync_work_fn+0x17/0xa0
process_one_work+0x193/0x350
worker_thread+0x1a1/0x310
kthread+0xfc/0x240
ret_from_fork+0x243/0x280
ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30
On fuse this is problematic because there are paths that may cause the
flusher thread to block (eg if systemd freezes the user session cgroups
first, which freezes the fuse daemon, before invoking the kernel
suspend. The kernel suspend triggers ->write_node() which on fuse issues
a synchronous setattr request, which cannot be processed since the
daemon is frozen. Or if the daemon is buggy and cannot properly complete
writeback, initiating writeback on a dirty folio already under writeback
leads to writeback_get_folio() -> folio_prepare_writeback() ->
unconditional wait on writeback to finish, which will cause a hang).
This commit restores fuse to its prior behavior before tmp folios were
removed, where sync was essentially a no-op.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/CAJnrk1a-asuvfrbKXbEwwDSctvemF+6zfhdnuzO65Pt8HsFSRw@mail.gmail.com/T/#m632c4648e9cafc4239299887109ebd880ac6c5c1
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 low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
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.
The score's inputs: 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