CVE Descriptions

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net: ks8851: Reinstate disabling of BHs around IRQ handler If the driver executes ks8851_irq() AND a TX packet has been sent, then the driver enables TX queue via netif_wake_queue() which schedules TX softirq to queue packets for this device. If CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT=y is set AND a packet has also been received by the MAC, then ks8851_rx_pkts() calls netdev_alloc_skb_ip_align() to allocate SKBs for the received packets. If netdev_alloc_skb_ip_align() is called with BH enabled, then local_bh_enable() at the end of netdev_alloc_skb_ip_align() will trigger the pending softirq processing, which may ultimately call the .xmit callback ks8851_start_xmit_par(). The ks8851_start_xmit_par() will try to lock struct ks8851_net_par .lock spinlock, which is already locked by ks8851_irq() from which ks8851_start_xmit_par() was called. This leads to a deadlock, which is reported by the kernel, including a trace listed below. If CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT is not set, then since commit 0913ec336a6c0 ("net: ks8851: Fix deadlock with the SPI chip variant") the deadlock can also be triggered without received packet in the RX FIFO. The pending softirqs will be processed on return from spin_unlock_bh(&ks->statelock) in ks8851_irq(), which triggers the deadlock as well. Fix the problem by disabling BH around critical sections, including the IRQ handler, thus preventing the net_tx_action() softirq from triggering during these critical sections. The net_tx_action() softirq is triggered once BH are re-enabled and at the end of the IRQ handler, once all the other IRQ handler actions have been completed. __schedule from schedule_rtlock+0x1c/0x34 schedule_rtlock from rtlock_slowlock_locked+0x548/0x904 rtlock_slowlock_locked from rt_spin_lock+0x60/0x9c rt_spin_lock from ks8851_start_xmit_par+0x74/0x1a8 ks8851_start_xmit_par from netdev_start_xmit+0x20/0x44 netdev_start_xmit from dev_hard_start_xmit+0xd0/0x188 dev_hard_start_xmit from sch_direct_xmit+0xb8/0x25c sch_direct_xmit from __qdisc_run+0x1f8/0x4ec __qdisc_run from qdisc_run+0x1c/0x28 qdisc_run from net_tx_action+0x1f0/0x268 net_tx_action from handle_softirqs+0x1a4/0x270 handle_softirqs from __local_bh_enable_ip+0xcc/0xe0 __local_bh_enable_ip from __alloc_skb+0xd8/0x128 __alloc_skb from __netdev_alloc_skb+0x3c/0x19c __netdev_alloc_skb from ks8851_irq+0x388/0x4d4 ks8851_irq from irq_thread_fn+0x24/0x64 irq_thread_fn from irq_thread+0x178/0x28c irq_thread from kthread+0x12c/0x138 kthread from ret_from_fork+0x14/0x28

CVE Informations

Related Weaknesses

CWE-ID	Weakness Name	Source
CWE-667	Improper Locking The product does not properly acquire or release a lock on a resource, leading to unexpected resource state changes and behaviors.

Metrics

Metrics	Score	Severity	CVSS Vector	Source
V3.1	7.5	HIGH	CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/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. Network The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed “remotely exploitable” and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers). 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. None The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an 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 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. None There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component. Integrity Impact This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. None There is no loss of integrity within 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