lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  linux-cve-announce  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2025091557-CVE-2023-53187-fb77@gregkh>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2025 16:02:41 +0200
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: linux-cve-announce@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...nel.org>
Subject: CVE-2023-53187: btrfs: fix use-after-free of new block group that became unused

From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...nel.org>

Description
===========

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

btrfs: fix use-after-free of new block group that became unused

If a task creates a new block group and that block group becomes unused
before we finish its creation, at btrfs_create_pending_block_groups(),
then when btrfs_mark_bg_unused() is called against the block group, we
assume that the block group is currently in the list of block groups to
reclaim, and we move it out of the list of new block groups and into the
list of unused block groups. This has two consequences:

1) We move it out of the list of new block groups associated to the
   current transaction. So the block group creation is not finished and
   if we attempt to delete the bg because it's unused, we will not find
   the block group item in the extent tree (or the new block group tree),
   its device extent items in the device tree etc, resulting in the
   deletion to fail due to the missing items;

2) We don't increment the reference count on the block group when we
   move it to the list of unused block groups, because we assumed the
   block group was on the list of block groups to reclaim, and in that
   case it already has the correct reference count. However the block
   group was on the list of new block groups, in which case no extra
   reference was taken because it's local to the current task. This
   later results in doing an extra reference count decrement when
   removing the block group from the unused list, eventually leading the
   reference count to 0.

This second case was caught when running generic/297 from fstests, which
produced the following assertion failure and stack trace:

  [589.559] assertion failed: refcount_read(&block_group->refs) == 1, in fs/btrfs/block-group.c:4299
  [589.559] ------------[ cut here ]------------
  [589.559] kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/block-group.c:4299!
  [589.560] invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP PTI
  [589.560] CPU: 8 PID: 2819134 Comm: umount Tainted: G        W          6.4.0-rc6-btrfs-next-134+ #1
  [589.560] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS rel-1.16.2-0-gea1b7a073390-prebuilt.qemu.org 04/01/2014
  [589.560] RIP: 0010:btrfs_free_block_groups+0x449/0x4a0 [btrfs]
  [589.561] Code: 68 62 da c0 (...)
  [589.561] RSP: 0018:ffffa55a8c3b3d98 EFLAGS: 00010246
  [589.561] RAX: 0000000000000058 RBX: ffff8f030d7f2000 RCX: 0000000000000000
  [589.562] RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: ffffffff953f0878 RDI: 00000000ffffffff
  [589.562] RBP: ffff8f030d7f2088 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: ffffa55a8c3b3c50
  [589.562] R10: 0000000000000001 R11: 0000000000000001 R12: ffff8f05850b4c00
  [589.562] R13: ffff8f030d7f2090 R14: ffff8f05850b4cd8 R15: dead000000000100
  [589.563] FS:  00007f497fd2e840(0000) GS:ffff8f09dfc00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
  [589.563] CS:  0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
  [589.563] CR2: 00007f497ff8ec10 CR3: 0000000271472006 CR4: 0000000000370ee0
  [589.563] DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
  [589.564] DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
  [589.564] Call Trace:
  [589.564]  <TASK>
  [589.565]  ? __die_body+0x1b/0x60
  [589.565]  ? die+0x39/0x60
  [589.565]  ? do_trap+0xeb/0x110
  [589.565]  ? btrfs_free_block_groups+0x449/0x4a0 [btrfs]
  [589.566]  ? do_error_trap+0x6a/0x90
  [589.566]  ? btrfs_free_block_groups+0x449/0x4a0 [btrfs]
  [589.566]  ? exc_invalid_op+0x4e/0x70
  [589.566]  ? btrfs_free_block_groups+0x449/0x4a0 [btrfs]
  [589.567]  ? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x16/0x20
  [589.567]  ? btrfs_free_block_groups+0x449/0x4a0 [btrfs]
  [589.567]  ? btrfs_free_block_groups+0x449/0x4a0 [btrfs]
  [589.567]  close_ctree+0x35d/0x560 [btrfs]
  [589.568]  ? fsnotify_sb_delete+0x13e/0x1d0
  [589.568]  ? dispose_list+0x3a/0x50
  [589.568]  ? evict_inodes+0x151/0x1a0
  [589.568]  generic_shutdown_super+0x73/0x1a0
  [589.569]  kill_anon_super+0x14/0x30
  [589.569]  btrfs_kill_super+0x12/0x20 [btrfs]
  [589.569]  deactivate_locked_super+0x2e/0x70
  [589.569]  cleanup_mnt+0x104/0x160
  [589.570]  task_work_run+0x56/0x90
  [589.570]  exit_to_user_mode_prepare+0x160/0x170
  [589.570]  syscall_exit_to_user_mode+0x22/0x50
  [589.570]  ? __x64_sys_umount+0x12/0x20
  [589.571]  do_syscall_64+0x48/0x90
  [589.571]  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x72/0xdc
  [589.571] RIP: 0033:0x7f497ff0a567
  [589.571] Code: af 98 0e (...)
  [589.572] RSP: 002b:00007ffc98347358 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 00000000000000a6
  [589.572] RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: 00007f49800b8264 RCX: 00007f497ff0a567
  [589.572] RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 0000000000000000 RDI: 0000557f558abfa0
  [589.573] RBP: 0000557f558a6ba0 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 00007ffc98346100
  [589.573] R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 0000000000000000
  [589.573] R13: 0000557f558abfa0 R14: 0000557f558a6cb0 R15: 0000557f558a6dd0
  [589.573]  </TASK>
  [589.574] Modules linked in: dm_snapshot dm_thin_pool (...)
  [589.576] ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]---

Fix this by adding a runtime flag to the block group to tell that the
block group is still in the list of new block groups, and therefore it
should not be moved to the list of unused block groups, at
btrfs_mark_bg_unused(), until the flag is cleared, when we finish the
creation of the block group at btrfs_create_pending_block_groups().

The Linux kernel CVE team has assigned CVE-2023-53187 to this issue.


Affected and fixed versions
===========================

	Issue introduced in 5.15.128 with commit edf3b5aadb2515c808200b904baa5b70a727f0ac

Please see https://www.kernel.org for a full list of currently supported
kernel versions by the kernel community.

Unaffected versions might change over time as fixes are backported to
older supported kernel versions.  The official CVE entry at
	https://cve.org/CVERecord/?id=CVE-2023-53187
will be updated if fixes are backported, please check that for the most
up to date information about this issue.


Affected files
==============

The file(s) affected by this issue are:
	fs/btrfs/block-group.c
	fs/btrfs/block-group.h


Mitigation
==========

The Linux kernel CVE team recommends that you update to the latest
stable kernel version for this, and many other bugfixes.  Individual
changes are never tested alone, but rather are part of a larger kernel
release.  Cherry-picking individual commits is not recommended or
supported by the Linux kernel community at all.  If however, updating to
the latest release is impossible, the individual changes to resolve this
issue can be found at these commits:
	https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/6297644db23f77c02ae7961cc542d162629ae2c4
	https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/7569c4294ba6ff9f194635b14876198f8a687c4a
	https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/0657b20c5a76c938612f8409735a8830d257866e

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ