In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
btrfs: do not ASSERT() when the fs flips RO inside btrfs_repair_io_failure()
[BUG]
There is a bug report that when btrfs hits ENOSPC error in a critical
path, btrfs flips RO (this part is expected, although the ENOSPC bug
still needs to be addressed).
The problem is after the RO flip, if there is a read repair pending, we
can hit the ASSERT() inside btrfs_repair_io_failure() like the following:
BTRFS info (device vdc): relocating block group 30408704 flags metadata|raid1
------------[ cut here ]------------
BTRFS: Transaction aborted (error -28)
WARNING: fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:3235 at __btrfs_free_extent.isra.0+0x453/0xfd0, CPU#1: btrfs/383844
Modules linked in: kvm_intel kvm irqbypass
[...]
---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]---
BTRFS info (device vdc state EA): 2 enospc errors during balance
BTRFS info (device vdc state EA): balance: ended with status: -30
BTRFS error (device vdc state EA): parent transid verify failed on logical 30556160 mirror 2 wanted 8 found 6
BTRFS error (device vdc state EA): bdev /dev/nvme0n1 errs: wr 0, rd 0, flush 0, corrupt 10, gen 0
[...]
assertion failed: !(fs_info->sb->s_flags & SB_RDONLY) :: 0, in fs/btrfs/bio.c:938
------------[ cut here ]------------
assertion failed: !(fs_info->sb->s_flags & SB_RDONLY) :: 0, in fs/btrfs/bio.c:938
kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/bio.c:938!
Oops: invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] SMP NOPTI
CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 868 Comm: kworker/u8:13 Tainted: G W N 6.19.0-rc6+ #4788 PREEMPT(full)
Tainted: [W]=WARN, [N]=TEST
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS rel-1.17.0-0-gb52ca86e094d-prebuilt.qemu.org 04/01/2014
Workqueue: btrfs-endio simple_end_io_work
RIP: 0010:btrfs_repair_io_failure.cold+0xb2/0x120
RSP: 0000:ffffc90001d2bcf0 EFLAGS: 00010246
RAX: 0000000000000051 RBX: 0000000000001000 RCX: 0000000000000000
RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: ffffffff8305cf42 RDI: 00000000ffffffff
RBP: 0000000000000002 R08: 00000000fffeffff R09: ffffffff837fa988
R10: ffffffff8327a9e0 R11: 6f69747265737361 R12: ffff88813018d310
R13: ffff888168b8a000 R14: ffffc90001d2bd90 R15: ffff88810a169000
FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff8885e752c000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
------------[ cut here ]------------
[CAUSE]
The cause of -ENOSPC error during the test case btrfs/124 is still
unknown, although it's known that we still have cases where metadata can
be over-committed but can not be fulfilled correctly, thus if we hit
such ENOSPC error inside a critical path, we have no choice but abort
the current transaction.
This will mark the fs read-only.
The problem is inside the btrfs_repair_io_failure() path that we require
the fs not to be mount read-only. This is normally fine, but if we are
doing a read-repair meanwhile the fs flips RO due to a critical error,
we can enter btrfs_repair_io_failure() with super block set to
read-only, thus triggering the above crash.
[FIX]
Just replace the ASSERT() with a proper return if the fs is already
read-only.
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