In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ceph: fix i_nlink underrun during async unlink
During async unlink, we drop the i_nlink counter before we receive
the completion (that will eventually update the i_nlink) because "we
assume that the unlink will succeed". That is not a bad idea, but it
races against deletions by other clients (or against the completion of
our own unlink) and can lead to an underrun which emits a WARNING like
this one:
WARNING: CPU: 85 PID: 25093 at fs/inode.c:407 drop_nlink+0x50/0x68
Modules linked in:
CPU: 85 UID: 3221252029 PID: 25093 Comm: php-cgi8.1 Not tainted 6.14.11-cm4all1-ampere #655
Hardware name: Supermicro ARS-110M-NR/R12SPD-A, BIOS 1.1b 10/17/2023
pstate: 60400009 (nZCv daif +PAN -UAO -TCO -DIT -SSBS BTYPE=--)
pc : drop_nlink+0x50/0x68
lr : ceph_unlink+0x6c4/0x720
sp : ffff80012173bc90
x29: ffff80012173bc90 x28: ffff086d0a45aaf8 x27: ffff0871d0eb5680
x26: ffff087f2a64a718 x25: 0000020000000180 x24: 0000000061c88647
x23: 0000000000000002 x22: ffff07ff9236d800 x21: 0000000000001203
x20: ffff07ff9237b000 x19: ffff088b8296afc0 x18: 00000000f3c93365
x17: 0000000000070000 x16: ffff08faffcbdfe8 x15: ffff08faffcbdfec
x14: 0000000000000000 x13: 45445f65645f3037 x12: 34385f6369706f74
x11: 0000a2653104bb20 x10: ffffd85f26d73290 x9 : ffffd85f25664f94
x8 : 00000000000000c0 x7 : 0000000000000000 x6 : 0000000000000002
x5 : 0000000000000081 x4 : 0000000000000481 x3 : 0000000000000000
x2 : 0000000000000000 x1 : 0000000000000000 x0 : ffff08727d3f91e8
Call trace:
drop_nlink+0x50/0x68 (P)
vfs_unlink+0xb0/0x2e8
do_unlinkat+0x204/0x288
__arm64_sys_unlinkat+0x3c/0x80
invoke_syscall.constprop.0+0x54/0xe8
do_el0_svc+0xa4/0xc8
el0_svc+0x18/0x58
el0t_64_sync_handler+0x104/0x130
el0t_64_sync+0x154/0x158
In ceph_unlink(), a call to ceph_mdsc_submit_request() submits the
CEPH_MDS_OP_UNLINK to the MDS, but does not wait for completion.
Meanwhile, between this call and the following drop_nlink() call, a
worker thread may process a CEPH_CAP_OP_IMPORT, CEPH_CAP_OP_GRANT or
just a CEPH_MSG_CLIENT_REPLY (the latter of which could be our own
completion). These will lead to a set_nlink() call, updating the
i_nlink counter to the value received from the MDS. If that new
i_nlink value happens to be zero, it is illegal to decrement it
further. But that is exactly what ceph_unlink() will do then.
The WARNING can be reproduced this way:
- Force async unlink; only the async code path is affected. Having
no real clue about Ceph internals, I was unable to find out why the
MDS wouldn't give me the "Fxr" capabilities, so I patched
get_caps_for_async_unlink() to always succeed.
(Note that the WARNING dump above was found on an unpatched kernel,
without this kludge - this is not a theoretical bug.)
- Add a sleep call after ceph_mdsc_submit_request() so the unlink
completion gets handled by a worker thread before drop_nlink() is
called. This guarantees that the
i_nlink is already zero before
drop_nlink() runs.
The solution is to skip the counter decrement when it is already zero,
but doing so without a lock is still racy (TOCTOU). Since
ceph_fill_inode() and handle_cap_grant() both hold the
ceph_inode_info.i_ceph_lock spinlock while set_nlink() runs, this
seems like the proper lock to protect the i_nlink updates.
I found prior art in NFS and SMB (using inode.i_lock) and AFS (using
afs_vnode.cb_lock). All three have the zero check as well.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (4.7): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 4.7 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 4.7 MEDIUMCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.NVD CVSS v3 · CVSS v3.0 or v3.1
- 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: 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.
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