ghsa-2244-8r8j-955v
Vulnerability from github
Published
2025-10-07 18:31
Modified
2025-10-07 18:31
Details

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

btrfs: reject invalid reloc tree root keys with stack dump

[BUG] Syzbot reported a crash that an ASSERT() got triggered inside prepare_to_merge().

That ASSERT() makes sure the reloc tree is properly pointed back by its subvolume tree.

[CAUSE] After more debugging output, it turns out we had an invalid reloc tree:

BTRFS error (device loop1): reloc tree mismatch, root 8 has no reloc root, expect reloc root key (-8, 132, 8) gen 17

Note the above root key is (TREE_RELOC_OBJECTID, ROOT_ITEM, QUOTA_TREE_OBJECTID), meaning it's a reloc tree for quota tree.

But reloc trees can only exist for subvolumes, as for non-subvolume trees, we just COW the involved tree block, no need to create a reloc tree since those tree blocks won't be shared with other trees.

Only subvolumes tree can share tree blocks with other trees (thus they have BTRFS_ROOT_SHAREABLE flag).

Thus this new debug output proves my previous assumption that corrupted on-disk data can trigger that ASSERT().

[FIX] Besides the dedicated fix and the graceful exit, also let tree-checker to check such root keys, to make sure reloc trees can only exist for subvolumes.

Show details on source website


{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2023-53618"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2025-10-07T16:15:44Z",
    "severity": null
  },
  "details": "In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:\n\nbtrfs: reject invalid reloc tree root keys with stack dump\n\n[BUG]\nSyzbot reported a crash that an ASSERT() got triggered inside\nprepare_to_merge().\n\nThat ASSERT() makes sure the reloc tree is properly pointed back by its\nsubvolume tree.\n\n[CAUSE]\nAfter more debugging output, it turns out we had an invalid reloc tree:\n\n  BTRFS error (device loop1): reloc tree mismatch, root 8 has no reloc root, expect reloc root key (-8, 132, 8) gen 17\n\nNote the above root key is (TREE_RELOC_OBJECTID, ROOT_ITEM,\nQUOTA_TREE_OBJECTID), meaning it\u0027s a reloc tree for quota tree.\n\nBut reloc trees can only exist for subvolumes, as for non-subvolume\ntrees, we just COW the involved tree block, no need to create a reloc\ntree since those tree blocks won\u0027t be shared with other trees.\n\nOnly subvolumes tree can share tree blocks with other trees (thus they\nhave BTRFS_ROOT_SHAREABLE flag).\n\nThus this new debug output proves my previous assumption that corrupted\non-disk data can trigger that ASSERT().\n\n[FIX]\nBesides the dedicated fix and the graceful exit, also let tree-checker to\ncheck such root keys, to make sure reloc trees can only exist for subvolumes.",
  "id": "GHSA-2244-8r8j-955v",
  "modified": "2025-10-07T18:31:09Z",
  "published": "2025-10-07T18:31:09Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-53618"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/314135b7bae9618a317874ae195272682cf2d5d4"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/3ae93b316ca4b8b3c33798ef1d210355f2fb9318"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/6ebcd021c92b8e4b904552e4d87283032100796d"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/84256e00eeca73c529fc6196e478cc89b8098157"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": []
}


Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.


Loading…

Loading…

Loading…

Sightings

Author Source Type Date

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or seen somewhere by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability is confirmed from an analyst perspective.
  • Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
  • Exploited: This vulnerability was exploited and seen by the user reporting the sighting.
  • Patched: This vulnerability was successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.
  • Not exploited: This vulnerability was not exploited or seen by the user reporting the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expresses doubt about the veracity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: This vulnerability was not successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.


Loading…

Loading…