CVE-2025-38139

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

netfs: Fix oops in write-retry from mis-resetting the subreq iterator

Fix the resetting of the subrequest iterator in netfs_retry_write_stream() to use the iterator-reset function as the iterator may have been shortened by a previous retry. In such a case, the amount of data to be written by the subrequest is not subreq->len but subreq->len - subreq->transferred.

Without this, KASAN may see an error in iov_iter_revert():

BUG: KASAN: slab-out-of-bounds in iov_iter_revert lib/iov_iter.c:633 [inline] BUG: KASAN: slab-out-of-bounds in iov_iter_revert+0x443/0x5a0 lib/iov_iter.c:611 Read of size 4 at addr ffff88802912a0b8 by task kworker/u32:7/1147

CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 1147 Comm: kworker/u32:7 Not tainted 6.15.0-rc6-syzkaller-00052-g9f35e33144ae #0 PREEMPT(full) Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS 1.16.3-debian-1.16.3-2~bpo12+1 04/01/2014 Workqueue: events_unbound netfs_write_collection_worker Call Trace: __dump_stack lib/dump_stack.c:94 [inline] dump_stack_lvl+0x116/0x1f0 lib/dump_stack.c:120 print_address_description mm/kasan/report.c:408 [inline] print_report+0xc3/0x670 mm/kasan/report.c:521 kasan_report+0xe0/0x110 mm/kasan/report.c:634 iov_iter_revert lib/iov_iter.c:633 [inline] iov_iter_revert+0x443/0x5a0 lib/iov_iter.c:611 netfs_retry_write_stream fs/netfs/write_retry.c:44 [inline] netfs_retry_writes+0x166d/0x1a50 fs/netfs/write_retry.c:231 netfs_collect_write_results fs/netfs/write_collect.c:352 [inline] netfs_write_collection_worker+0x23fd/0x3830 fs/netfs/write_collect.c:374 process_one_work+0x9cf/0x1b70 kernel/workqueue.c:3238 process_scheduled_works kernel/workqueue.c:3319 [inline] worker_thread+0x6c8/0xf10 kernel/workqueue.c:3400 kthread+0x3c2/0x780 kernel/kthread.c:464 ret_from_fork+0x45/0x80 arch/x86/kernel/process.c:153 ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30 arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:245

Weakness

The product reads data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.

Affected Software

Potential Mitigations

• Assume all input is malicious. Use an “accept known good” input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
• When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, “boat” may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as “red” or “blue.”
• Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code’s environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
• To reduce the likelihood of introducing an out-of-bounds read, ensure that you validate and ensure correct calculations for any length argument, buffer size calculation, or offset. Be especially careful of relying on a sentinel (i.e. special character such as NUL) in untrusted inputs.

Related Attack Patterns

• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/540.html

References

• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/4481f7f2b3df123ec77e828c849138f75cff2bf2
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/bd0edaf99a920b1a9decd773179caacacb61d0fd
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/e0fefe9bc07e6101fdc57abda3644f296c114e31