Executive Summary
| Informations | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Name | CVE-2024-42103 | First vendor Publication | 2024-07-30 |
| Vendor | Cve | Last vendor Modification | 2024-11-21 |
Security-Database Scoring CVSS v3
| Cvss vector : N/A | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall CVSS Score | NA | ||
| Base Score | NA | Environmental Score | NA |
| impact SubScore | NA | Temporal Score | NA |
| Exploitabality Sub Score | NA | ||
| Calculate full CVSS 3.0 Vectors scores | |||
Security-Database Scoring CVSS v2
| Cvss vector : | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Cvss Base Score | N/A | Attack Range | N/A |
| Cvss Impact Score | N/A | Attack Complexity | N/A |
| Cvss Expoit Score | N/A | Authentication | N/A |
| Calculate full CVSS 2.0 Vectors scores | |||
Detail
| In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: btrfs: fix adding block group to a reclaim list and the unused list during reclaim There is a potential parallel list adding for retrying in btrfs_reclaim_bgs_work and adding to the unused list. Since the block group is removed from the reclaim list and it is on a relocation work, it can be added into the unused list in parallel. When that happens, adding it to the reclaim list will corrupt the list head and trigger list corruption like below. Fix it by taking fs_info->unused_bgs_lock. [177.504][T2585409] BTRFS error (device nullb1): error relocating ch= unk 2415919104 There is a similar retry_list code in btrfs_delete_unused_bgs(), but it is safe, AFAICS. Since the block group was in the unused list, the used bytes should be 0 when it was added to the unused list. Then, it checks block_group->{used,reserved,pinned} are still 0 under the block_group->lock. So, they should be still eligible for the unused list, not the reclaim list. The reason it is safe there it's because because we're holding space_info->groups_sem in write mode. That means no other task can allocate from the block group, so while we are at deleted_unused_bgs() it's not possible for other tasks to allocate and deallocate extents from the block group, so it can't be added to the unused list or the reclaim list by anyone else. The bug can be reproduced by btrfs/166 after a few rounds. In practice this can be hit when relocation cannot find more chunk space and ends with ENOSPC. |
Original Source
| Url : http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2024-42103 |
Sources (Detail)
Alert History
| Date | Informations |
|---|---|
| 2024-11-25 09:23:19 |
|
| 2024-07-30 17:27:23 |
|
| 2024-07-30 13:27:27 |
|
