CVE-2024-26727
Linux Kernel 5.9 – 5.10.210
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:HSummary
CVE-2024-26727 is a medium-severity Reachable Assertion (CWE-617) vulnerability in Linux Linux Kernel. Its CVSS base score is 5.5 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Application or System Exploitation (T1499.004); ranked at the 14th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SA-8 (Security and Privacy Engineering Principles) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-23989
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: btrfs: do not ASSERT() if the newly created subvolume already got read [BUG] There is a syzbot crash, triggered by the ASSERT() during subvolume creation: assertion failed: !anon_dev, in fs/btrfs/disk-io.c:1319…
more
------------[ cut here ]------------ kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/disk-io.c:1319! invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP KASAN RIP: 0010:btrfs_get_root_ref.part.0+0x9aa/0xa60 <TASK> btrfs_get_new_fs_root+0xd3/0xf0 create_subvol+0xd02/0x1650 btrfs_mksubvol+0xe95/0x12b0 __btrfs_ioctl_snap_create+0x2f9/0x4f0 btrfs_ioctl_snap_create+0x16b/0x200 btrfs_ioctl+0x35f0/0x5cf0 __x64_sys_ioctl+0x19d/0x210 do_syscall_64+0x3f/0xe0 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0x6b ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- [CAUSE] During create_subvol(), after inserting root item for the newly created subvolume, we would trigger btrfs_get_new_fs_root() to get the btrfs_root of that subvolume. The idea here is, we have preallocated an anonymous device number for the subvolume, thus we can assign it to the new subvolume. But there is really nothing preventing things like backref walk to read the new subvolume. If that happens before we call btrfs_get_new_fs_root(), the subvolume would be read out, with a new anonymous device number assigned already. In that case, we would trigger ASSERT(), as we really expect no one to read out that subvolume (which is not yet accessible from the fs). But things like backref walk is still possible to trigger the read on the subvolume. Thus our assumption on the ASSERT() is not correct in the first place. [FIX] Fix it by removing the ASSERT(), and just free the @anon_dev, reset it to 0, and continue. If the subvolume tree is read out by something else, it should have already get a new anon_dev assigned thus we only need to free the preallocated one.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation finds reachable assertions during development.
Security engineering principles discourage use of assertions for handling untrusted input.
Validating untrusted inputs structurally prevents attacker data from reaching and triggering assertions.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure SDLC practices directly prevent unsafe assertions from being coded in reachable paths.
Runtime monitoring of software can detect assertion-triggered crashes as adverse events.
Vulnerability identification processes can discover and record reachable-assertion flaws before deployment.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Security testing in development can detect reachable assertions before release, reducing the likelihood of exploitation.
Secure development lifecycle mandates defensive coding and input validation that prevent reachable assertions from being triggered by untrusted data.
Application security requirements can specify that assertions must not be reachable from attacker-controlled inputs.
Secure architecture principles discourage the use of assertions for runtime error handling that an attacker could exploit.
Secure coding standards explicitly ban the use of assert() or equivalent statements that can be triggered by external input.