In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: nilfs2: reject zero bd_oblocknr in nilfs_ioctl_mark_blocks_dirty() nilfs_ioctl_mark_blocks_dirty() uses bd_oblocknr to detect dead blocks by comparing it with the current block number bd_blocknr. If they differ, the block is considered dead and skipped. However, bd_oblocknr should never be 0 since block 0 typically stores the primary superblock and is never a valid GC target block. A corrupted ioctl request with bd_oblocknr s
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
nilfs2: reject zero bd_oblocknr in nilfs_ioctl_mark_blocks_dirty()
nilfs_ioctl_mark_blocks_dirty() uses bd_oblocknr to detect dead blocks by comparing it with the current block number bd_blocknr. If they differ, the block is considered dead and skipped.
However, bd_oblocknr should never be 0 since block 0 typically stores the primary superblock and is never a valid GC target block. A corrupted ioctl request with bd_oblocknr set to 0 causes the comparison to incorrectly match when the lookup returns -ENOENT and sets bd_blocknr to 0, bypassing the dead block check and calling nilfs_bmap_mark() on a non-existent block. This causes nilfs_btree_do_lookup() to return -ENOENT, triggering the WARN_ON(ret == -ENOENT).
Fix this by rejecting ioctl requests with bd_oblocknr set to 0 at the beginning of each iteration.
[ryusuke: slightly modified the commit message and comments for accuracy]
왜 이 VPI인가 (설명가능 · 실험적)
VPI 산정 기준
| 영향도 | 55.00 |
| 악용 신호(추가 악용신호 없음) | ×1.00 |
| VPI | 55.00 |
VPI 공식 vpi-v1 기준