In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
btrfs: fix zero size inode with non-zero size after log replay
When logging that an inode exists, as part of logging a new name or
logging new dir entries for a directory, we always set the generation of
the logged inode item to 0. This is to signal during log replay (in
overwrite_item()), that we should not set the i_size since we only logged
that an inode exists, so the i_size of the inode in the subvolume tree
must be preserved (as when we log new names or that an inode exists, we
don't log extents).
This works fine except when we have already logged an inode in full mode
or it's the first time we are logging an inode created in a past
transaction, that inode has a new i_size of 0 and then we log a new name
for the inode (due to a new hardlink or a rename), in which case we log
an i_size of 0 for the inode and a generation of 0, which causes the log
replay code to not update the inode's i_size to 0 (in overwrite_item()).
An example scenario:
mkdir /mnt/dir
xfs_io -f -c "pwrite 0 64K" /mnt/dir/foo
sync
xfs_io -c "truncate 0" -c "fsync" /mnt/dir/foo
ln /mnt/dir/foo /mnt/dir/bar
xfs_io -c "fsync" /mnt/dir
After log replay the file remains with a size of 64K. This is because when
we first log the inode, when we fsync file foo, we log its current i_size
of 0, and then when we create a hard link we log again the inode in exists
mode (LOG_INODE_EXISTS) but we set a generation of 0 for the inode item we
add to the log tree, so during log replay overwrite_item() sees that the
generation is 0 and i_size is 0 so we skip updating the inode's i_size
from 64K to 0.
Fix this by making sure at fill_inode_item() we always log the real
generation of the inode if it was logged in the current transaction with
the i_size we logged before. Also if an inode created in a previous
transaction is logged in exists mode only, make sure we log the i_size
stored in the inode item located from the commit root, so that if we log
multiple times that the inode exists we get the correct i_size.
A test case for fstests will follow soon.
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
- 0.2% 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