CVE Descriptions

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: xdp: produce a warning when calculated tailroom is negative Many ethernet drivers report xdp Rx queue frag size as being the same as DMA write size. However, the only user of this field, namely bpf_xdp_frags_increase_tail(), clearly expects a truesize. Such difference leads to unspecific memory corruption issues under certain circumstances, e.g. in ixgbevf maximum DMA write size is 3 KB, so when running xskxceiver's XDP_ADJUST_TAIL_GROW_MULTI_BUFF, 6K packet fully uses all DMA-writable space in 2 buffers. This would be fine, if only rxq->frag_size was properly set to 4K, but value of 3K results in a negative tailroom, because there is a non-zero page offset. We are supposed to return -EINVAL and be done with it in such case, but due to tailroom being stored as an unsigned int, it is reported to be somewhere near UINT_MAX, resulting in a tail being grown, even if the requested offset is too much (it is around 2K in the abovementioned test). This later leads to all kinds of unspecific calltraces. [ 7340.337579] xskxceiver[1440]: segfault at 1da718 ip 00007f4161aeac9d sp 00007f41615a6a00 error 6 [ 7340.338040] xskxceiver[1441]: segfault at 7f410000000b ip 00000000004042b5 sp 00007f415bffecf0 error 4 [ 7340.338179] in libc.so.6[61c9d,7f4161aaf000+160000] [ 7340.339230] in xskxceiver[42b5,400000+69000] [ 7340.340300] likely on CPU 6 (core 0, socket 6) [ 7340.340302] Code: ff ff 01 e9 f4 fe ff ff 0f 1f 44 00 00 4c 39 f0 74 73 31 c0 ba 01 00 00 00 f0 0f b1 17 0f 85 ba 00 00 00 49 8b 87 88 00 00 00 <4c> 89 70 08 eb cc 0f 1f 44 00 00 48 8d bd f0 fe ff ff 89 85 ec fe [ 7340.340888] likely on CPU 3 (core 0, socket 3) [ 7340.345088] Code: 00 00 00 ba 00 00 00 00 be 00 00 00 00 89 c7 e8 31 ca ff ff 89 45 ec 8b 45 ec 85 c0 78 07 b8 00 00 00 00 eb 46 e8 0b c8 ff ff <8b> 00 83 f8 69 74 24 e8 ff c7 ff ff 8b 00 83 f8 0b 74 18 e8 f3 c7 [ 7340.404334] Oops: general protection fault, probably for non-canonical address 0x6d255010bdffc: 0000 [#1] SMP NOPTI [ 7340.405972] CPU: 7 UID: 0 PID: 1439 Comm: xskxceiver Not tainted 6.19.0-rc1+ #21 PREEMPT(lazy) [ 7340.408006] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS 1.17.0-5.fc42 04/01/2014 [ 7340.409716] RIP: 0010:lookup_swap_cgroup_id+0x44/0x80 [ 7340.410455] Code: 83 f8 1c 73 39 48 ba ff ff ff ff ff ff ff 03 48 8b 04 c5 20 55 fa bd 48 21 d1 48 89 ca 83 e1 01 48 d1 ea c1 e1 04 48 8d 04 90 <8b> 00 48 83 c4 10 d3 e8 c3 cc cc cc cc 31 c0 e9 98 b7 dd 00 48 89 [ 7340.412787] RSP: 0018:ffffcc5c04f7f6d0 EFLAGS: 00010202 [ 7340.413494] RAX: 0006d255010bdffc RBX: ffff891f477895a8 RCX: 0000000000000010 [ 7340.414431] RDX: 0001c17e3fffffff RSI: 00fa070000000000 RDI: 000382fc7fffffff [ 7340.415354] RBP: 00fa070000000000 R08: ffffcc5c04f7f8f8 R09: ffffcc5c04f7f7d0 [ 7340.416283] R10: ffff891f4c1a7000 R11: ffffcc5c04f7f9c8 R12: ffffcc5c04f7f7d0 [ 7340.417218] R13: 03ffffffffffffff R14: 00fa06fffffffe00 R15: ffff891f47789500 [ 7340.418229] FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff891ffdfaa000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 [ 7340.419489] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 [ 7340.420286] CR2: 00007f415bfffd58 CR3: 0000000103f03002 CR4: 0000000000772ef0 [ 7340.421237] PKRU: 55555554 [ 7340.421623] Call Trace: [ 7340.421987] [ 7340.422309] ? softleaf_from_pte+0x77/0xa0 [ 7340.422855] swap_pte_batch+0xa7/0x290 [ 7340.423363] zap_nonpresent_ptes.constprop.0.isra.0+0xd1/0x270 [ 7340.424102] zap_pte_range+0x281/0x580 [ 7340.424607] zap_pmd_range.isra.0+0xc9/0x240 [ 7340.425177] unmap_page_range+0x24d/0x420 [ 7340.425714] unmap_vmas+0xa1/0x180 [ 7340.426185] exit_mmap+0xe1/0x3b0 [ 7340.426644] __mmput+0x41/0x150 [ 7340.427098] exit_mm+0xb1/0x110 [ 7340.427539] do_exit+0x1b2/0x460 [ 7340.427992] do_group_exit+0x2d/0xc0 [ 7340.428477] get_signal+0x79d/0x7e0 [ 7340.428957] arch_do_signal_or_restart+0x34/0x100 [ 7340.429571] exit_to_user_mode_loop+0x8e/0x4c0 [ 7340.430159] do_syscall_64+0x188/ ---truncated---

CVE Informations

Related Weaknesses

CWE-ID	Weakness Name	Source
CWE-787	Out-of-bounds Write The product writes data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.

Metrics

Metrics	Score	Severity	CVSS Vector	Source
V3.1	7.8	HIGH	CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H More informations Base: Exploitabilty Metrics The Exploitability metrics reflect the characteristics of the thing that is vulnerable, which we refer to formally as the vulnerable component. Attack Vector This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. Local The vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities. Attack Complexity This metric describes the conditions beyond the attacker’s control that must exist in order to exploit the vulnerability. Low Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success when attacking the vulnerable component. Privileges Required This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess before successfully exploiting the vulnerability. Low The attacker requires privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources. User Interaction This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable component. None The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any user. Base: Scope Metrics The Scope metric captures whether a vulnerability in one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope. Scope Formally, a security authority is a mechanism (e.g., an application, an operating system, firmware, a sandbox environment) that defines and enforces access control in terms of how certain subjects/actors (e.g., human users, processes) can access certain restricted objects/resources (e.g., files, CPU, memory) in a controlled manner. All the subjects and objects under the jurisdiction of a single security authority are considered to be under one security scope. If a vulnerability in a vulnerable component can affect a component which is in a different security scope than the vulnerable component, a Scope change occurs. Intuitively, whenever the impact of a vulnerability breaches a security/trust boundary and impacts components outside the security scope in which vulnerable component resides, a Scope change occurs. Unchanged An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority. Base: Impact Metrics The Impact metrics capture the effects of a successfully exploited vulnerability on the component that suffers the worst outcome that is most directly and predictably associated with the attack. Analysts should constrain impacts to a reasonable, final outcome which they are confident an attacker is able to achieve. Confidentiality Impact This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information resources managed by a software component due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. High There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server. Integrity Impact This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. High There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component. Availability Impact This metric measures the impact to the availability of the impacted component resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. High There is a total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable). Temporal Metrics The Temporal metrics measure the current state of exploit techniques or code availability, the existence of any patches or workarounds, or the confidence in the description of a vulnerability. Environmental Metrics These metrics enable the analyst to customize the CVSS score depending on the importance of the affected IT asset to a user’s organization, measured in terms of Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability.	nvd@nist.gov

EPSS

EPSS is a scoring model that predicts the likelihood of a vulnerability being exploited.

EPSS Score

The EPSS model produces a probability score between 0 and 1 (0 and 100%). The higher the score, the greater the probability that a vulnerability will be exploited.

EPSS Percentile

The percentile is used to rank CVE according to their EPSS score. For example, a CVE in the 95th percentile according to its EPSS score is more likely to be exploited than 95% of other CVE. Thus, the percentile is used to compare the EPSS score of a CVE with that of other CVE.

EPSS First.org