Linux Kernel: security vulnerability (CVE-2023-52897)
Published Sources: BSI, EUVD, CVE.org
What is affected, what to do
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: btrfs: qgroup: do not warn on record without old_roots populated [BUG] There are some reports from the mailing list that since v6.1 kernel, the WARN_ON() inside btrfs_qgroup_account_extent() gets triggered during rescan: WARNING: CPU: 3 PID: 6424 at fs/btrfs/qgroup.c:2756 btrfs_qgroup_account_extents+0x1ae/0x260 [btrfs] CPU: 3 PID: 6424 Comm: snapperd Tainted: P OE 6.1.2-1-default #1 openSUSE Tumbleweed 05c7a1b1b61d5627475528f71f50444637b5aad7 RIP: 0010:btrfs_qgroup_account_extents+0x1ae/0x260 [btrfs] Call Trace: <TASK> btrfs_commit_transaction+0x30c/0xb40 [btrfs c39c9c546c241c593f03bd6d5f39ea1b676250f6] ? start_transaction+0xc3/0x5b0 [btrfs c39c9c546c241c593f03bd6d5f39ea1b676250f6] btrfs_qgroup_rescan+0x42/0xc0 [btrfs c39c9c546c241c593f03bd6d5f39ea1b676250f6] btrfs_ioctl+0x1ab9/0x25c0 [btrfs c39c9c546c241c593f03bd6d5f39ea1b676250f6] ? __rseq_handle_notify_resume+0xa9/0x4a0 ? mntput_no_expire+0x4a/0x240 ? __seccomp_filter+0x319/0x4d0 __x64_sys_ioctl+0x90/0xd0 do_syscall_64+0x5b/0x80 ? syscall_exit_to_user_mode+0x17/0x40 ? do_syscall_64+0x67/0x80 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd RIP: 0033:0x7fd9b790d9bf </TASK> [CAUSE] Since commit e15e9f43c7ca ("btrfs: introduce BTRFS_QGROUP_RUNTIME_FLAG_NO_ACCOUNTING to skip qgroup accounting"), if our qgroup is already in inconsistent state, we will no longer do the time-consuming backref walk. This can leave some qgroup records without a valid old_roots ulist.
Update Linux Kernel to version 6.1.8, Linux Kernel to version 6.2.
- Affected
- Linux Kernel
lt 6.1..6.1.8
- Linux Kernel
- Fixed in
- Linux Kernel
6.1.8 - Linux Kernel
6.2
- Linux Kernel
Not sure whether and how you are affected? Ask a question about this vulnerability
Metrics
4.7
XIEM Effective CVSS
Highest available CVSS rating from NVD and vendor data.
Source: NVD, CVSS v3
4.7
CVSS v3
Severity Medium on the scale from 0 to 10.
Source: BSI, EUVD, CVE.org
0.2 %
EPSS score
Low — model estimates < 1% exploitation likelihood.
Source: FIRST EPSS, percentile 9.7
Show all metrics
- Severity
- Medium
Priority (0–325)
The priority score is a consolidated metric that condenses several individual signals into a single, action-guiding ranking: technical severity (CVSS), exploitation likelihood (EPSS), known-exploited status (KEV) and the context of the affected asset. The aim is to answer the only truly important question in vulnerability management: what first?
Read in glossary- 30.15 Methodology
Exploit maturity
An exploit is code or a technique that specifically uses a concrete vulnerability to force unintended behaviour — such as executing code or escalating privileges. It is the tool that turns a theoretical flaw into a practical attack.
Read in glossary- no public PoC known
XIEM Effective CVSS
XIEM® is the tiered managed-security operating model from NEOSEC and a registered trademark of NEOSEC GmbH. It extends classic SIEM — the central collection, normalisation and correlation of security-relevant events — with endpoint forensics, network visibility and deception technology, and consolidates them into three building tiers: Sentry, Orchestrate and Command.
Read in glossary- 4.7 Methodology
CVSS v3
CVSS is the globally established, open standard for assessing the technical severity of a vulnerability on a scale from 0 to 10. It describes how easily a flaw can be exploited and what damage it can cause — but not how likely its actual exploitation is. CVSS and the complementary EPSS deliberately answer different questions.
Read in glossary- 4.7
EPSS score
The EPSS score is the absolute model output for an individual vulnerability: the estimated probability of real-world exploitation within the next 30 days, expressed as a value between 0 and 1 (i.e. 0 % to 100 %). A score of 0.42 means „the model estimates a 42 % chance of real-world exploitation within 30 days“.
Read in glossary- 0.2 %
- Low — model estimates < 1% exploitation likelihood.
EPSS percentile
The EPSS percentile is the relative position of a vulnerability within all EPSS-scored CVEs, expressed as a value between 0 and 1. A percentile of 0.90 means „this CVE has a higher EPSS score than 90 % of all other scored CVEs“. Unlike the EPSS score, it is not a probability — but a positioning within a ranking.
Read in glossary- 9.7
- Low — this CVE sits in the lower 10% of all CVEs scored today.
KEV status
The KEV catalogue is a list maintained by the US authority CISA of vulnerabilities for which active exploitation in the wild has been confirmed. It answers not the question „how severe?“ but „is it already being attacked?“ — thereby sharply prioritising patching.
Read in glossary- —
- Published
- CISA assessment (SSVC)
- Exploitation: none known · not automatable · Technical impact: partial
- Source: CISA Vulnrichment, as of 10 September 2024
Detection rules
No NEOSEC detection rule is available for this vulnerability yet.
Classification under NIS2 and CRA
Rule-based classification from exploitation status and severity. It does not replace a case-by-case assessment.
NIS2
NIS2 is EU Directive (EU) 2022/2555 to raise the level of cybersecurity across the Union. It substantially broadens obligations compared with the first NIS directive: more sectors, mandatory risk management, staged reporting duties and personal accountability of senior management.
Read in glossary- Handle the vulnerability in regular vulnerability handling under Art. 21(2)(e) NIS2.
CRA
The CRA is EU Regulation (EU) 2024/2847 setting horizontal cybersecurity requirements for „products with digital elements“ — from industrial controllers and software to connected consumer devices. For the first time manufacturers must ensure security across the entire product lifecycle, handle vulnerabilities and provide security updates.
Read in glossary- From 11.12.2027, Annex I Part II CRA requires manufacturers of affected products with digital elements to handle vulnerabilities without delay and provide security updates.
ISO/IEC 27001
ISO/IEC 27001 is the internationally leading standard for an information security management system (ISMS). It describes a risk-based, process-oriented framework to systematically plan, implement, review and improve information security.
Read in glossary- Control A.8.8, management of technical vulnerabilities: assess relevance to your systems, plan remediation and keep evidence.
Description
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: btrfs: qgroup: do not warn on record without old_roots populated [BUG] There are some reports from the mailing list that since v6.1 kernel, the WARN_ON() inside btrfs_qgroup_account_extent() gets triggered during rescan: WARNING: CPU: 3 PID: 6424 at fs/btrfs/qgroup.c:2756 btrfs_qgroup_account_extents+0x1ae/0x260 [btrfs] CPU: 3 PID: 6424 Comm: snapperd Tainted: P OE 6.1.2-1-default #1 openSUSE Tumbleweed 05c7a1b1b61d5627475528f71f50444637b5aad7 RIP: 0010:btrfs_qgroup_account_extents+0x1ae/0x260 [btrfs] Call Trace: <TASK> btrfs_commit_transaction+0x30c/0xb40 [btrfs c39c9c546c241c593f03bd6d5f39ea1b676250f6] ? start_transaction+0xc3/0x5b0 [btrfs c39c9c546c241c593f03bd6d5f39ea1b676250f6] btrfs_qgroup_rescan+0x42/0xc0 [btrfs c39c9c546c241c593f03bd6d5f39ea1b676250f6] btrfs_ioctl+0x1ab9/0x25c0 [btrfs c39c9c546c241c593f03bd6d5f39ea1b676250f6] ? __rseq_handle_notify_resume+0xa9/0x4a0 ? mntput_no_expire+0x4a/0x240 ? __seccomp_filter+0x319/0x4d0 __x64_sys_ioctl+0x90/0xd0 do_syscall_64+0x5b/0x80 ? syscall_exit_to_user_mode+0x17/0x40 ? do_syscall_64+0x67/0x80 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd RIP: 0033:0x7fd9b790d9bf </TASK> [CAUSE] Since commit e15e9f43c7ca ("btrfs: introduce BTRFS_QGROUP_RUNTIME_FLAG_NO_ACCOUNTING to skip qgroup accounting"), if our qgroup is already in inconsistent state, we will no longer do the time-consuming backref walk. This can leave some qgroup records without a valid old_roots ulist. Normally this is fine, as btrfs_qgroup_account_extents() would also skip those records if we have NO_ACCOUNTING flag set. But there is a small window, if we have NO_ACCOUNTING flag set, and inserted some qgroup_record without a old_roots ulist, but then the user triggered a qgroup rescan. During btrfs_qgroup_rescan(), we firstly clear NO_ACCOUNTING flag, then commit current transaction. And since we have a qgroup_record with old_roots = NULL, we trigger the WARN_ON() during btrfs_qgroup_account_extents(). [FIX] Unfortunately due to the introduction of NO_ACCOUNTING flag, the assumption that every qgroup_record would have its old_roots populated is no longer correct. Fix the false alerts and drop the WARN_ON().
Source: BSI CSAF, BSI WID Portal, ENISA EUVD, NVD (NIST), cvelistv5
Affected products
The following versions are affected. Older releases of the same product line are also vulnerable unless stated otherwise.
| Affected versions | Fixed in | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Linux | Linux |
|
|
Vendors and products
Affected operating systems
| Linux | linux | linux_kernel | 6.2 |
| Linux | linux | linux_kernel | — |
References & sources
- git.kernel.orgstable/c/bb2c2e62539f2b63c5e0beb51501d328260c7595euvd, Patch
- git.kernel.orgstable/c/75181406b4eafacc531ff2ee5fb032bd93317e2beuvd, Patch
Embed badge
Show the severity and KEV status of this vulnerability on your site – with a link back here. The image is updated hourly.
<a href="https://intel.neosec.eu/en/cve/CVE-2023-52897"><img src="https://intel.neosec.eu/badge/cve/CVE-2023-52897.svg?lang=en" alt="CVE-2023-52897 – NEOSEC Intel" height="20"></a>