CVE-2023-54002
What it is
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: btrfs: fix assertion of exclop condition when starting balance Balance as exclusive state is compatible with paused balance and device add, which makes some things more complicated. The assertion of valid states when starting from paused balance needs to take into account two more states, the combinations can be hit when there are several threads racing to start balance and device add. This won't typically happen when the commands are started from command line. Scenario 1: With exclusive_operation state == BTRFS_EXCLOP_NONE. Concurrently adding multiple devices to the same mount point and btrfs_exclop_finish executed finishes before assertion in btrfs_exclop_balance, exclusive_operation will changed to BTRFS_EXCLOP_NONE state which lead to assertion failed: fs_info->exclusive_operation == BTRFS_EXCLOP_BALANCE || fs_info->exclusive_operation == BTRFS_EXCLOP_DEV_ADD, in fs/btrfs/ioctl.c:456 Call Trace: <TASK> btrfs_exclop_balance+0x13c/0x310 ? memdup_user+0xab/0xc0 ? PTR_ERR+0x17/0x20 btrfs_ioctl_add_dev+0x2ee/0x320 btrfs_ioctl+0x9d5/0x10d0 ? btrfs_ioctl_encoded_write+0xb80/0xb80 __x64_sys_ioctl+0x197/0x210 do_syscall_64+0x3c/0xb0 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd Scenario 2: With exclusive_operation state == BTRFS_EXCLOP_BALANCE_PAUSED. Concurrently adding multiple devices to the same mount point and btrfs_exclop_balance executed finish before the latter thread execute assertion in btrfs_exclop_balance, exclusive_operation will changed to BTRFS_EXCLOP_BALANCE_PAUSED state which lead to assertion failed: fs_info->exclusive_operation == BTRFS_EXCLOP_BALANCE || fs_info->exclusive_operation == BTRFS_EXCLOP_DEV_ADD || fs_info->exclusive_operation == BTRFS_EXCLOP_NONE, fs/btrfs/ioctl.c:458 Call Trace: <TASK> btrfs_exclop_balance+0x240/0x410 ? memdup_user+0xab/0xc0 ? PTR_ERR+0x17/0x20 btrfs_ioctl_add_dev+0x2ee/0x320 btrfs_ioctl+0x9d5/0x10d0 ? btrfs_ioctl_encoded_write+0xb80/0xb80 __x64_sys_ioctl+0x197/0x210 do_syscall_64+0x3c/0xb0 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd An example of the failed assertion is below, which shows that the paused balance is also needed to be checked. root@syzkaller:/home/xsk# ./repro Failed to add device /dev/vda, errno 14 Failed to add device /dev/vda, errno 14 Failed to add device /dev/vda, errno 14 Failed to add device /dev/vda, errno 14 Failed to add device /dev/vda, errno 14 Failed to add device /dev/vda, errno 14 Failed to add device /dev/vda, errno 14 Failed to add device /dev/vda, errno 14 Failed to add device /dev/vda, errno 14 [ 416.611428][ T7970] BTRFS info (device loop0): fs_info exclusive_operation: 0 Failed to add device /dev/vda, errno 14 [ 416.613973][ T7971] BTRFS info (device loop0): fs_info exclusive_operation: 3 Failed to add device /dev/vda, errno 14 [ 416.615456][ T7972] BTRFS info (device loop0): fs_info exclusive_operation: 3 Failed to add device /dev/vda, errno 14 [ 416.617528][ T7973] BTRFS info (device loop0): fs_info exclusive_operation: 3 Failed to add device /dev/vda, errno 14 [ 416.618359][ T7974] BTRFS info (device loop0): fs_info exclusive_operation: 3 Failed to add device /dev/vda, errno 14 [ 416.622589][ T7975] BTRFS info (device loop0): fs_info exclusive_operation: 3 Failed to add device /dev/vda, errno 14 [ 416.624034][ T7976] BTRFS info (device loop0): fs_info exclusive_operation: 3 Failed to add device /dev/vda, errno 14 [ 416.626420][ T7977] BTRFS info (device loop0): fs_info exclusive_operation: 3 Failed to add device /dev/vda, errno 14 [ 416.627643][ T7978] BTRFS info (device loop0): fs_info exclusive_operation: 3 Failed to add device /dev/vda, errno 14 [ 416.629006][ T7979] BTRFS info (device loop0): fs_info exclusive_operation: 3 [ 416.630298][ T7980] BTRFS info (device loop0): fs_info exclusive_operation: 3 Fai ---truncated---
At a glance
- Exploit odds
- 0.2% chance of exploitation in the next 30 days (EPSS).
- Fix
- No patch or advisory is linked yet. Look at mitigations or restrict exposure.
Timeline
- PublishedDisclosed publicly on CVE.org and NVD
- Last updatedMost recent change to the record
Why it ranks here
- Exploited in the wild: no, CISA does not list it.
- Exploit odds: 0.2% in the next 30 days (EPSS).
- Severity: not scored yet.
- Fix: none linked yet, which raises it.
Details
- Published
- Last modified
- Exploit probability
- 0.2% · EPSS, next 30 days
- Record status
- Deferred
Is it in your code?
Hand this to your coding agent. It searches your project for the affected products and checks versions. Nothing leaves your machine.
Read https://cve-list.com/agent/cve/CVE-2023-54002.md and follow it. Check whether this project is affected by CVE-2023-54002. Read only. Don't change anything and don't upload my code. Tell me yes, no or not sure, with the file as proof.
