From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz>
Cc: cve@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-cve-announce@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: CVE-2022-49761: btrfs: always report error in run_one_delayed_ref()
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2025 20:43:02 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2025033118-hardship-reliant-2f7a@gregkh> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250331180316.GJ32661@suse.cz>
On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 08:03:17PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 05:43:19PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > Description
> > ===========
> >
> > In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
> >
> > btrfs: always report error in run_one_delayed_ref()
> >
> > Currently we have a btrfs_debug() for run_one_delayed_ref() failure, but
> > if end users hit such problem, there will be no chance that
> > btrfs_debug() is enabled. This can lead to very little useful info for
> > debugging.
> >
> > This patch will:
> >
> > - Add extra info for error reporting
> > Including:
> > * logical bytenr
> > * num_bytes
> > * type
> > * action
> > * ref_mod
> >
> > - Replace the btrfs_debug() with btrfs_err()
> >
> > - Move the error reporting into run_one_delayed_ref()
> > This is to avoid use-after-free, the @node can be freed in the caller.
This text here is why a CVE was assigned for this, is this not a
use-after-free fix?
> > The Linux kernel CVE team has assigned CVE-2022-49761 to this issue.
>
> I'm disputing this CVE, there is no vulnerability. The code moves a
> debugging print and makes it a more verbose error but does not have any
> other functional change. Specifically it does not extend error handling
> in any sensible way.
>
> There is no apparent _vulnerability_, the patch was in stable likely
> because it adds some user convenience, but thre's no Fixes nor CC:stable
> tags so it was probably picked by AUTOSEL. Please reject the CVE, thanks.
This was part of the big GSD import of security vulnerability
identifiers that cve.org is having us do. I read the above text about a
use-after-free which is why I agreed with the original assignment of a
GSD id and gave it a CVE id.
If this isn't the case, I'll be glad to revoke it, but at least now you
know why it was assigned one :)
thanks,
greg k-h
prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-03-31 19:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-03-27 16:43 CVE-2022-49761: btrfs: always report error in run_one_delayed_ref() Greg Kroah-Hartman
2025-03-31 18:03 ` David Sterba
2025-03-31 19:43 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=2025033118-hardship-reliant-2f7a@gregkh \
--to=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=cve@kernel.org \
--cc=dsterba@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-cve-announce@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.