CVE Descriptions

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net/smc: fix double-free of smc_spd_priv when tee() duplicates splice pipe buffer smc_rx_splice() allocates one smc_spd_priv per pipe_buffer and stores the pointer in pipe_buffer.private. The pipe_buf_operations for these buffers used .get = generic_pipe_buf_get, which only increments the page reference count when tee(2) duplicates a pipe buffer. The smc_spd_priv pointer itself was not handled, so after tee() both the original and the cloned pipe_buffer share the same smc_spd_priv *. When both pipes are subsequently released, smc_rx_pipe_buf_release() is called twice against the same object: 1st call: kfree(priv) sock_put(sk) smc_rx_update_cons() [correct] 2nd call: kfree(priv) sock_put(sk) smc_rx_update_cons() [UAF] KASAN reports a slab-use-after-free in smc_rx_pipe_buf_release(), which then escalates to a NULL-pointer dereference and kernel panic via smc_rx_update_consumer() when it chases the freed priv->smc pointer: BUG: KASAN: slab-use-after-free in smc_rx_pipe_buf_release+0x78/0x2a0 Read of size 8 at addr ffff888004a45740 by task smc_splice_tee_/74 Call Trace: dump_stack_lvl+0x53/0x70 print_report+0xce/0x650 kasan_report+0xc6/0x100 smc_rx_pipe_buf_release+0x78/0x2a0 free_pipe_info+0xd4/0x130 pipe_release+0x142/0x160 __fput+0x1c6/0x490 __x64_sys_close+0x4f/0x90 do_syscall_64+0xa6/0x1a0 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x77/0x7f BUG: kernel NULL pointer dereference, address: 0000000000000020 RIP: 0010:smc_rx_update_consumer+0x8d/0x350 Call Trace: smc_rx_pipe_buf_release+0x121/0x2a0 free_pipe_info+0xd4/0x130 pipe_release+0x142/0x160 __fput+0x1c6/0x490 __x64_sys_close+0x4f/0x90 do_syscall_64+0xa6/0x1a0 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x77/0x7f Kernel panic - not syncing: Fatal exception Beyond the memory-safety problem, duplicating an SMC splice buffer is semantically questionable: smc_rx_update_cons() would advance the consumer cursor twice for the same data, corrupting receive-window accounting. A refcount on smc_spd_priv could fix the double-free, but the cursor-accounting issue would still need to be addressed separately. The .get callback is invoked by both tee(2) and splice_pipe_to_pipe() for partial transfers; both will now return -EFAULT. Users who need to duplicate SMC socket data must use a copy-based read path.

CVE Informations

Related Weaknesses

CWE-ID	Weakness Name	Source
CWE-415	Double Free The product calls free() twice on the same memory address.

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.	416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67

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