Bug 616998 (CVE-2010-2537, CVE-2010-2538)

Summary: CVE-2010-2537 CVE-2010-2538 kernel: btrfs: fix checks in BTRFS_IOC_CLONE_RANGE
Product: [Other] Security Response Reporter: Petr Matousek <pmatouse>
Component: vulnerabilityAssignee: Red Hat Product Security <security-response-team>
Status: NEW --- QA Contact:
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: unspecifiedCC: arozansk, eteo, peterm, pmatouse, tcallawa
Target Milestone: ---Keywords: Security
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Bug Depends On: 617003    
Bug Blocks:    

Description Petr Matousek 2010-07-21 21:25:19 UTC
Description of problem:
1. CVE-2010-2537 - The BTRFS_IOC_CLONE and BTRFS_IOC_CLONE_RANGE ioctls should check whether the donor file is append-only before writing to it.

2. CVE-2010-2538 - The BTRFS_IOC_CLONE_RANGE ioctl appears to have an integer
overflow that allows a user to specify an out-of-bounds range to copy from the source file (if off + len wraps around).

Upstream commit:
http://git.kernel.org/linus/2ebc3464781ad24474abcbd2274e6254689853b5

Reference:
https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Main_Page

The kernel in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 has support for Btrfs by default.

Comment 1 Petr Matousek 2010-07-21 21:25:46 UTC
Statement:

Not vulnerable. This issue did not affect the versions of Linux kernel as shipped with Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3, 4, 5 and Red Hat Enterprise MRG as they did not include support for Btrfs, a new copy on write filesystem.

Comment 3 Eugene Teo (Security Response) 2010-08-02 03:50:04 UTC
Acknowledgements:

Red Hat would like to thank Dan Rosenberg for responsibly reporting this issue.

Comment 4 Eugene Teo (Security Response) 2010-08-02 03:57:52 UTC
*** Bug 616992 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 6 Chuck Ebbert 2010-08-02 21:14:24 UTC
Fixed upstream in 2.6.35, 2.6.34.2, 2.6.33.7 and 2.6.32.17