CVE-2024-47736

Source
https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-47736
Import Source
https://storage.googleapis.com/cve-osv-conversion/osv-output/CVE-2024-47736.json
JSON Data
https://api.osv.dev/v1/vulns/CVE-2024-47736
Downstream
Related
Published
2024-10-21T13:15:03Z
Modified
2025-08-09T19:01:26Z
Severity
  • 5.5 (Medium) CVSS_V3 - CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H CVSS Calculator
Summary
[none]
Details

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

erofs: handle overlapped pclusters out of crafted images properly

syzbot reported a task hang issue due to a deadlock case where it is waiting for the folio lock of a cached folio that will be used for cache I/Os.

After looking into the crafted fuzzed image, I found it's formed with several overlapped big pclusters as below:

Ext: logical offset | length : physical offset | length 0: 0.. 16384 | 16384 : 151552.. 167936 | 16384 1: 16384.. 32768 | 16384 : 155648.. 172032 | 16384 2: 32768.. 49152 | 16384 : 537223168.. 537239552 | 16384 ...

Here, extent 0/1 are physically overlapped although it's entirely impossible for normal filesystem images generated by mkfs.

First, managed folios containing compressed data will be marked as up-to-date and then unlocked immediately (unlike in-place folios) when compressed I/Os are complete. If physical blocks are not submitted in the incremental order, there should be separate BIOs to avoid dependency issues. However, the current code mis-arranges zerofsfillbiovec() and BIO submission which causes unexpected BIO waits.

Second, managed folios will be connected to their own pclusters for efficient inter-queries. However, this is somewhat hard to implement easily if overlapped big pclusters exist. Again, these only appear in fuzzed images so let's simply fall back to temporary short-lived pages for correctness.

Additionally, it justifies that referenced managed folios cannot be truncated for now and reverts part of commit 2080ca1ed3e4 ("erofs: tidy up struct z_erofs_bvec") for simplicity although it shouldn't be any difference.

References

Affected packages