ghsa-jrcf-gr4j-p9gp
Vulnerability from github
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
cifs: Fix server re-repick on subrequest retry
When a subrequest is marked for needing retry, netfs will call cifs_prepare_write() which will make cifs repick the server for the op before renegotiating credits; it then calls cifs_issue_write() which invokes smb2_async_writev() - which re-repicks the server.
If a different server is then selected, this causes the increment of server->in_flight to happen against one record and the decrement to happen against another, leading to misaccounting.
Fix this by just removing the repick code in smb2_async_writev(). As this is only called from netfslib-driven code, cifs_prepare_write() should always have been called first, and so server should never be NULL and the preparatory step is repeated in the event that we do a retry.
The problem manifests as a warning looking something like:
WARNING: CPU: 4 PID: 72896 at fs/smb/client/smb2ops.c:97 smb2_add_credits+0x3f0/0x9e0 [cifs] ... RIP: 0010:smb2_add_credits+0x3f0/0x9e0 [cifs] ... smb2_writev_callback+0x334/0x560 [cifs] cifs_demultiplex_thread+0x77a/0x11b0 [cifs] kthread+0x187/0x1d0 ret_from_fork+0x34/0x60 ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30
Which may be triggered by a number of different xfstests running against an Azure server in multichannel mode. generic/249 seems the most repeatable, but generic/215, generic/249 and generic/308 may also show it.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-42256"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-08-08T09:15:08Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:\n\ncifs: Fix server re-repick on subrequest retry\n\nWhen a subrequest is marked for needing retry, netfs will call\ncifs_prepare_write() which will make cifs repick the server for the op\nbefore renegotiating credits; it then calls cifs_issue_write() which\ninvokes smb2_async_writev() - which re-repicks the server.\n\nIf a different server is then selected, this causes the increment of\nserver-\u003ein_flight to happen against one record and the decrement to happen\nagainst another, leading to misaccounting.\n\nFix this by just removing the repick code in smb2_async_writev(). As this\nis only called from netfslib-driven code, cifs_prepare_write() should\nalways have been called first, and so server should never be NULL and the\npreparatory step is repeated in the event that we do a retry.\n\nThe problem manifests as a warning looking something like:\n\n WARNING: CPU: 4 PID: 72896 at fs/smb/client/smb2ops.c:97 smb2_add_credits+0x3f0/0x9e0 [cifs]\n ...\n RIP: 0010:smb2_add_credits+0x3f0/0x9e0 [cifs]\n ...\n smb2_writev_callback+0x334/0x560 [cifs]\n cifs_demultiplex_thread+0x77a/0x11b0 [cifs]\n kthread+0x187/0x1d0\n ret_from_fork+0x34/0x60\n ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30\n\nWhich may be triggered by a number of different xfstests running against an\nAzure server in multichannel mode. generic/249 seems the most repeatable,\nbut generic/215, generic/249 and generic/308 may also show it.",
"id": "GHSA-jrcf-gr4j-p9gp",
"modified": "2024-09-06T15:32:56Z",
"published": "2024-08-08T09:30:37Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-42256"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/b1d0a566769b6fb3795b5289fc1daf9e0638d97a"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/de40579b903883274fe203865f29d66b168b7236"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or seen somewhere by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability is confirmed from an analyst perspective.
- 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.