In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ext4: avoid allocate block from corrupted group in ext4_mb_find_by_goal()
There's issue as follows:
...
EXT4-fs (mmcblk0p1): Delayed block allocation failed for inode 206 at logical offset 0 with max blocks 1 with error 117
EXT4-fs (mmcblk0p1): This should not happen!! Data will be lost
EXT4-fs (mmcblk0p1): Delayed block allocation failed for inode 206 at logical offset 0 with max blocks 1 with error 117
EXT4-fs (mmcblk0p1): This should not happen!! Data will be lost
EXT4-fs (mmcblk0p1): Delayed block allocation failed for inode 206 at logical offset 0 with max blocks 1 with error 117
EXT4-fs (mmcblk0p1): This should not happen!! Data will be lost
EXT4-fs (mmcblk0p1): Delayed block allocation failed for inode 206 at logical offset 0 with max blocks 1 with error 117
EXT4-fs (mmcblk0p1): This should not happen!! Data will be lost
EXT4-fs (mmcblk0p1): Delayed block allocation failed for inode 2243 at logical offset 0 with max blocks 1 with error 117
EXT4-fs (mmcblk0p1): This should not happen!! Data will be lost
EXT4-fs (mmcblk0p1): Delayed block allocation failed for inode 2239 at logical offset 0 with max blocks 1 with error 117
EXT4-fs (mmcblk0p1): This should not happen!! Data will be lost
EXT4-fs (mmcblk0p1): error count since last fsck: 1
EXT4-fs (mmcblk0p1): initial error at time 1765597433: ext4_mb_generate_buddy:760
EXT4-fs (mmcblk0p1): last error at time 1765597433: ext4_mb_generate_buddy:760
...
According to the log analysis, blocks are always requested from the
corrupted block group. This may happen as follows:
ext4_mb_find_by_goal
ext4_mb_load_buddy
ext4_mb_load_buddy_gfp
ext4_mb_init_cache
ext4_read_block_bitmap_nowait
ext4_wait_block_bitmap
ext4_validate_block_bitmap
if (!grp || EXT4_MB_GRP_BBITMAP_CORRUPT(grp))
return -EFSCORRUPTED; // There's no logs.
if (err)
return err; // Will return error
ext4_lock_group(ac->ac_sb, group);
if (unlikely(EXT4_MB_GRP_BBITMAP_CORRUPT(e4b->bd_info))) // Unreachable
goto out;
After commit 9008a58e5dce ("ext4: make the bitmap read routines return
real error codes") merged, Commit 163a203ddb36 ("ext4: mark block group
as corrupt on block bitmap error") is no real solution for allocating
blocks from corrupted block groups. This is because if
'EXT4_MB_GRP_BBITMAP_CORRUPT(e4b->bd_info)' is true, then
'ext4_mb_load_buddy()' may return an error. This means that the block
allocation will fail.
Therefore, check block group if corrupted when ext4_mb_load_buddy()
returns error.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (5.5): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 5.5 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 5.5 MEDIUMCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.1% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS. FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
- Confirmed exploitation
- None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
- EG Priority
- SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from Vulnrichment. EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table
BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). Where an input reads “CISA's BOD 26-04 default”, no one has published it for this CVE, and CISA's implementation guidance says: “If “Automatable” and “Technical Impact” information items about a CVE ID are not available and the CVE ID is not in the KEV Catalog, CISA will treat its values as “no” and “total,” respectively, until CISA or a third party provides metadata about the CVE ID. CISA will always provide the Vulnrichment data for a CVE ID listed in the KEV Catalog.” Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it