Bug 2402283 (CVE-2023-53618) - CVE-2023-53618 kernel: btrfs: reject invalid reloc tree root keys with stack dump
Summary: CVE-2023-53618 kernel: btrfs: reject invalid reloc tree root keys with stack ...
Keywords:
Status: NEW
Alias: CVE-2023-53618
Product: Security Response
Classification: Other
Component: vulnerability
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
low
low
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Product Security DevOps Team
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2025-10-07 16:07 UTC by OSIDB Bzimport
Modified: 2026-06-29 18:02 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed:
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description OSIDB Bzimport 2025-10-07 16:07:14 UTC
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

btrfs: reject invalid reloc tree root keys with stack dump

[BUG]
Syzbot reported a crash that an ASSERT() got triggered inside
prepare_to_merge().

That ASSERT() makes sure the reloc tree is properly pointed back by its
subvolume tree.

[CAUSE]
After more debugging output, it turns out we had an invalid reloc tree:

  BTRFS error (device loop1): reloc tree mismatch, root 8 has no reloc root, expect reloc root key (-8, 132, 8) gen 17

Note the above root key is (TREE_RELOC_OBJECTID, ROOT_ITEM,
QUOTA_TREE_OBJECTID), meaning it's a reloc tree for quota tree.

But reloc trees can only exist for subvolumes, as for non-subvolume
trees, we just COW the involved tree block, no need to create a reloc
tree since those tree blocks won't be shared with other trees.

Only subvolumes tree can share tree blocks with other trees (thus they
have BTRFS_ROOT_SHAREABLE flag).

Thus this new debug output proves my previous assumption that corrupted
on-disk data can trigger that ASSERT().

[FIX]
Besides the dedicated fix and the graceful exit, also let tree-checker to
check such root keys, to make sure reloc trees can only exist for subvolumes.

Comment 1 Jon Moroney 2025-10-07 20:01:56 UTC Comment hidden (spam)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.