CVE-2024-35784

What the bug is

While working on the patchset to remove extent locking I got a lockdep splat with fiemap and pagefaulting with my new extent lock replacement lock. This deadlock exists with our normal code, we just don't have lockdep annotations with the extent locking so we've never noticed it. Since we're copying the fiemap extent to user space on every iteration we have the chance of pagefaulting. Because we hold the extent lock for the entire range we could mkwrite into a range in the file that we have mmap'ed. This would deadlock with the following stack trace [<0>] lock_extent+0x28d/0x2f0 [<0>] btrfs_page_mkwrite+0x273/0x8a0 [<0>] do_page_mkwrite+0x50/0xb0 [<0>] do_fault+0xc1/0x7b0 [<0>] __handle_mm_fault+0x2fa/0x460 [<0>] handle_mm_fault+0xa4/0x330 [<0>] do_user_addr_fault+0x1f4/0x800 [<0>] exc_page_fault+0x7c/0x1e0 [<0>] asm_exc_page_fault+0x26/0x30 [<0>] rep_movs_alternative+0x33/0x70 [<0>] _copy_to_user+0x49/0x70 [<0>] fiemap_fill_next_extent+0xc8/0x120 [<0>] emit_fiemap_extent+0x4d/0xa0 [<0>] extent_fiemap+0x7f8/0xad0 [<0>] btrfs_fiemap+0x49/0x80 [<0>] __x64_sys_ioctl+0x3e1/0xb50 [<0>] do_syscall_64+0x94/0x1a0 [<0>] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x6e/0x76 I wrote an fstest to reproduce this deadlock without my replacement lock and verified that the deadlock exists with our existing locking. To fix this simply don't take the extent lock for the entire duration of the fiemap. This is safe in general because we keep track of where we are when we're searching the tree, so if an ordered extent updates in the middle of our fiemap call we'll still emit the correct extents because we know what offset we were on before. The only place we maintain the lock is searching delalloc. Since the delalloc stuff can change during writeback we want to lock the extent range so we have a consistent view of delalloc at the time we're checking to see if we need to set the delalloc flag. With this patch applied we no longer deadlock with my testcase.

Where it lives

The fix touches these files. If the subsystem is one you do not use, the practical exposure is lower, though the package is still the vulnerable one.

fs/btrfs/extent_io.c

What this is

BTRFS FILE SYSTEMMAINTAINERS section matched on fs/btrfs/ · linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org · Maintained

Kernel module

btrfs

Check it on the machine

grep -w CONFIG_BTRFS_FS /boot/config-$(uname -r)

Reads the booted kernel's own configuration, on the machine and nowhere else. =y is built in, =m is a module, and an is not set line means the code is not there.

lsmod | grep -w btrfs

Prints a line if that module is loaded right now, and nothing if it is not. One that is not loaded can still be loaded later by anything that needs it.

Show whether Debian builds this, per release

Debian builds this as a loadable module. Every release below compiles it as a module on every flavour, so whether the code is in the running kernel depends on whether that module is loaded.

• bookworm, trixie, forky, sidm

m

a loadable module on every flavour - check lsmod, can be blacklisted

Build switch

CONFIG_BTRFS_FS

From the configuration Debian publishes for every kernel flavour it builds. It covers only the architectures Debian ships a linux-config package for, and nothing about a kernel you built yourself. Debian's own status above stays authoritative about the source package.MAINTAINERS kbuild Makefiles Debian linux-config packages

Signals

Published

2024-05-17 (2 years ago)source

CVSS

no vector published, unrated

Attack vector

not published

EPSS

0.17%, higher than 6.4% of all CVEssource

CISA KEV

not listedthe KEV catalogue

Debian urgency

not yet assignedsource

Subsystem

fs/btrfs

Upstream fixes

The versions the CNA records as introducing and fixing this, and the commit for each. source

Introduced	Fixed in	Commit
2.6.29	6.6.24	ded566b4637f
2.6.29	6.7.12	89bca7fe6382
2.6.29	6.8	b0ad381fa769