A flaw was found in glusterfs server through versions 4.1.4 and 3.1.2 which allowed repeated usage of GF_META_LOCK_KEY xattr. A remote, authenticated attacker could use this flaw to create multiple locks for single inode by using setxattr repetitively resulting in memory exhaustion of glusterfs server node.
The product does not properly control the allocation and maintenance of a limited resource.
| Name | Vendor | Start Version | End Version |
|---|---|---|---|
| Glusterfs | Gluster | 3.1.0 (including) | 3.1.2 (including) |
| Glusterfs | Gluster | 4.1.0 (including) | 4.1.4 (including) |
| Native Client for RHEL 6 for Red Hat Storage | RedHat | glusterfs-0:3.12.2-25.el6 | * |
| Native Client for RHEL 7 for Red Hat Storage | RedHat | glusterfs-0:3.12.2-25.el7 | * |
| Red Hat Gluster Storage 3.4 for RHEL 6 | RedHat | glusterfs-0:3.12.2-25.el6rhs | * |
| Red Hat Gluster Storage 3.4 for RHEL 6 | RedHat | redhat-storage-server-0:3.4.1.0-1.el6rhs | * |
| Red Hat Gluster Storage 3.4 for RHEL 7 | RedHat | glusterfs-0:3.12.2-25.el7rhgs | * |
| Red Hat Gluster Storage 3.4 for RHEL 7 | RedHat | redhat-storage-server-0:3.4.1.0-1.el7rhgs | * |
| Red Hat Virtualization 4 for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 | RedHat | glusterfs-0:3.12.2-25.el7 | * |
| Red Hat Virtualization 4 for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 | RedHat | imgbased-0:1.0.29-1.el7ev | * |
| Red Hat Virtualization 4 for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 | RedHat | redhat-release-virtualization-host-0:4.2-7.3.el7 | * |
| Red Hat Virtualization 4 for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 | RedHat | redhat-virtualization-host-0:4.2-20181026.0.el7_6 | * |
| Glusterfs | Ubuntu | bionic | * |
| Glusterfs | Ubuntu | cosmic | * |
| Glusterfs | Ubuntu | esm-apps/bionic | * |
Mitigation of resource exhaustion attacks requires that the target system either:
The first of these solutions is an issue in itself though, since it may allow attackers to prevent the use of the system by a particular valid user. If the attacker impersonates the valid user, they may be able to prevent the user from accessing the server in question.
The second solution is simply difficult to effectively institute – and even when properly done, it does not provide a full solution. It simply makes the attack require more resources on the part of the attacker.