In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
landlock: Require LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_MAKE_REG for whiteout creation
Whiteout objects are used in the upper layer of an OverlayFS to
indicate that the file with this name does not exist in the unified
view, even if it is present in one of the lower layer file systems.
For the userspace implementations of OverlayFS (fuse-overlayfs),
whiteout objects can be created from userspace as well:
* mknod(2) with S_IFCHR and makedev(0, 0)
* renameat2(2) with RENAME_WHITEOUT,
creating the whiteout in the old place of the moved file.
This commit guards whiteout creation in both of these cases with
LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_MAKE_REG. Whiteout objects are *not* considered
character devices and are not bound to a driver.
LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_MAKE_REG describes the same permission class as a
whiteout object: creating one is the only S_IFCHR creation that the VFS
exempts from CAP_MKNOD, so it is as unprivileged as creating a regular
file, while LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_MAKE_CHAR and
LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_MAKE_BLOCK keep meaning the creation of devices that
expose a kernel interface [1].
For the mknod(2) case, introduce a Landlock erratum. The creation of
whiteout objects through mknod(2) was previously guarded using
LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_MAKE_CHAR, and it is now guarded using
LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_MAKE_REG.
For the renameat2(2) case, fix a bug: Before this commit, renameat2(2)
with RENAME_WHITEOUT would create a directory entry even when all
LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_MAKE_* rights were denied.
This does not affect normal renames within layered OverlayFS mounts:
When doing a regular rename() on a mounted fuse-overlayfs, it is the
fuse-overlayfs daemon that exercises renameat2() with RENAME_WHITEOUT,
and only the Landlock domain of that daemon is checked there.
Depends-on: 49c9e09d9610 ("landlock: Fix handling of disconnected directories")
Depends-on: fe72ce6710cb ("landlock: Add errata documentation section")
[mic: Record why LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_MAKE_REG is the matching right, and
add link(2) to the user doc]
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