CVE-2024-27080 Security Vulnerability & Exploit Details

CVE-2024-27080
Vulnerability Scoring

Analysis In Progress

Attack Complexity Details

Attack Complexity:
Attack Complexity Analysis In Progress
Attack Vector:
Attack Vector Under Analysis
Privileges Required: None
No authentication is required for exploitation.
Scope:
Impact is confined to the initially vulnerable component.
User Interaction: None
No user interaction is necessary for exploitation.

CVE-2024-27080 Details

Status: Awaiting Analysis

Last updated: 🕘 21 Nov 2024, 09:03 UTC
Originally published on: 🕐 01 May 2024, 13:15 UTC

Time between publication and last update: 203 days

CVSS Release:

CVE-2024-27080 Vulnerability Summary

CVE-2024-27080: In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: btrfs: fix race when detecting delalloc ranges during fiemap For fiemap we recently stopped locking the target extent range for the whole duration of the fiemap call, in order to avoid a deadlock in a scenario where the fiemap buffer happens to be a memory mapped range of the same file. This use case is very unlikely to be useful in practice but it may be triggered by fuzz testing (syzbot, etc). This however introduced a race that makes us miss delalloc ranges for file regions that are currently holes, so the caller of fiemap will not be aware that there's data for some file regions. This can be quite serious for some use cases - for example in coreutils versions before 9.0, the cp program used fiemap to detect holes and data in the source file, copying only regions with data (extents or delalloc) from the source file to the destination file in order to preserve holes (see the documentation for its --sparse command line option). This means that if cp was used with a source file that had delalloc in a hole, the destination file could end up without that data, which is effectively a data loss issue, if it happened to hit the race described below. The race happens like this: 1) Fiemap is called, without the FIEMAP_FLAG_SYNC flag, for a file that has delalloc in the file range [64M, 65M[, which is currently a hole; 2) Fiemap locks the inode in shared mode, then starts iterating the inode's subvolume tree searching for file extent items, without having the whole fiemap target range locked in the inode's io tree - the change introduced recently by commit b0ad381fa769 ("btrfs: fix deadlock with fiemap and extent locking"). It only locks ranges in the io tree when it finds a hole or prealloc extent since that commit; 3) Note that fiemap clones each leaf before using it, and this is to avoid deadlocks when locking a file range in the inode's io tree and the fiemap buffer is memory mapped to some file, because writing to the page with btrfs_page_mkwrite() will wait on any ordered extent for the page's range and the ordered extent needs to lock the range and may need to modify the same leaf, therefore leading to a deadlock on the leaf; 4) While iterating the file extent items in the cloned leaf before finding the hole in the range [64M, 65M[, the delalloc in that range is flushed and its ordered extent completes - meaning the corresponding file extent item is in the inode's subvolume tree, but not present in the cloned leaf that fiemap is iterating over; 5) When fiemap finds the hole in the [64M, 65M[ range by seeing the gap in the cloned leaf (or a file extent item with disk_bytenr == 0 in case the NO_HOLES feature is not enabled), it will lock that file range in the inode's io tree and then search for delalloc by checking for the EXTENT_DELALLOC bit in the io tree for that range and ordered extents (with btrfs_find_delalloc_in_range()). But it finds nothing since the delalloc in that range was already flushed and the ordered extent completed and is gone - as a result fiemap will not report that there's delalloc or an extent for the range [64M, 65M[, so user space will be mislead into thinking that there's a hole in that range. This could actually be sporadically triggered with test case generic/094 from fstests, which reports a missing extent/delalloc range like this: generic/094 2s ... - output mismatch (see /home/fdmanana/git/hub/xfstests/results//generic/094.out.bad) --- tests/generic/094.out 2020-06-10 19:29:03.830519425 +0100 +++ /home/fdmanana/git/hub/xfstests/results//generic/094.out.bad 2024-02-28 11:00:00.381071525 +0000 @@ -1,3 +1,9 @@ QA output created by 094 fiemap run with sync fiemap run without sync +ERROR: couldn't find extent at 7 +map is 'HHDDHPPDPHPH' +logical: [ 5.. 6] phys: ---truncated---

Assessing the Risk of CVE-2024-27080

Access Complexity Graph

The exploitability of CVE-2024-27080 depends on two key factors: attack complexity (the level of effort required to execute an exploit) and privileges required (the access level an attacker needs).

Exploitability Analysis for CVE-2024-27080

No exploitability data is available for CVE-2024-27080.

Understanding AC and PR

A lower complexity and fewer privilege requirements make exploitation easier. Security teams should evaluate these aspects to determine the urgency of mitigation strategies, such as patch management and access control policies.

Attack Complexity (AC) measures the difficulty in executing an exploit. A high AC means that specific conditions must be met, making an attack more challenging, while a low AC means the vulnerability can be exploited with minimal effort.

Privileges Required (PR) determine the level of system access necessary for an attack. Vulnerabilities requiring no privileges are more accessible to attackers, whereas high privilege requirements limit exploitation to authorized users with elevated access.

CVSS Score Breakdown Chart

Above is the CVSS Sub-score Breakdown for CVE-2024-27080, illustrating how Base, Impact, and Exploitability factors combine to form the overall severity rating. A higher sub-score typically indicates a more severe or easier-to-exploit vulnerability.

CIA Impact Analysis

Below is the Impact Analysis for CVE-2024-27080, showing how Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability might be affected if the vulnerability is exploited. Higher values usually signal greater potential damage.

Confidentiality: None
CVE-2024-27080 does not compromise confidentiality.
Integrity: None
CVE-2024-27080 does not impact data integrity.
Availability: None
CVE-2024-27080 does not affect system availability.

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

The EPSS score estimates the probability that this vulnerability will be exploited in the near future.

EPSS Score: 0.045% (probability of exploit)

EPSS Percentile: 18.35% (lower percentile = lower relative risk)
This vulnerability is less risky than approximately 81.65% of others.

CVE-2024-27080 References

External References

CWE Common Weakness Enumeration

Unknown

Protect Your Infrastructure against CVE-2024-27080: Combat Critical CVE Threats

Stay updated with real-time CVE vulnerabilities and take action to secure your systems. Enhance your cybersecurity posture with the latest threat intelligence and mitigation techniques. Develop the skills necessary to defend against CVEs and secure critical infrastructures. Join the top cybersecurity professionals safeguarding today's infrastructures.

Other 5 Recently Published CVEs Vulnerabilities

CVE-2024-43107 – Improper Certificate Validation (CWE-295) in the Gallagher Milestone Integration Plugin (MIP) permits unauthenticated messages (e.g. alarm events) ...
CVE-2024-41724 – Improper Certificate Validation (CWE-295) in the Gallagher Command Centre SALTO integration allowed an attacker to spoof the SALTO server. Thi...
CVE-2025-2133 – A vulnerability classified as problematic was found in ftcms 2.1. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the file /admin/ind...
CVE-2025-2132 – A vulnerability classified as critical has been found in ftcms 2.1. Affected is an unknown function of the file /admin/index.php/web/ajax_all_lists...
CVE-2025-2131 – A vulnerability was found in dayrui XunRuiCMS up to 4.6.3. It has been rated as problematic. This issue affects some unknown processing of the comp...

CVE-2024-27080 Vulnerability Scoring