CVE Descriptions

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ksmbd: fix null pointer dereference in compare_guid_key() session_fd_check() walks the per-inode m_op_list during durable-handle session teardown and sets op->conn = NULL for every opinfo whose conn matched the closing session's connection. The matching opinfo, however, stays linked in its per-ClientGuid lease_table_list entry's lb->lease_list because destroy_lease_table() only runs on full TCP-connection teardown, not on SESSION_LOGOFF. If the same TCP connection then negotiates a fresh session with the same ClientGuid (ClientGuid is bound to NEGOTIATE, not the session, and is unchanged across LOGOFF + SETUP) and issues a SMB2 CREATE with a lease context on a different inode, find_same_lease_key() walks lb->lease_list, reaches the stale opinfo, and calls compare_guid_key(), which unconditionally dereferences opinfo->conn->ClientGUID. The conn pointer is NULL and the kernel panics. Reproducer requires only a successful SMB2 SESSION_SETUP and a share configured with 'durable handles = yes'. KASAN report on mainline 70390501d194: general protection fault, probably for non-canonical address 0xdffffc0000000069: 0000 [#1] SMP KASAN PTI KASAN: null-ptr-deref in range [0x0000000000000348-0x000000000000034f] Workqueue: ksmbd-io handle_ksmbd_work RIP: 0010:bcmp+0x5b/0x230 Call Trace: compare_guid_key+0x4b/0xd0 find_same_lease_key+0x324/0x690 smb2_open+0x6aea/0x8e60 handle_ksmbd_work+0x796/0xee0 ... Faulting address 0x348 is the offset of ClientGUID within struct ksmbd_conn, confirming opinfo->conn was NULL. Read opinfo->conn once and bail out if it has been cleared by a concurrent session_fd_check(). A half-detached opinfo cannot be the owner of an active lease, so returning 0 is the correct match result.

CVE Informations

Related Weaknesses

CWE-ID	Weakness Name	Source
CWE-476	NULL Pointer Dereference The product dereferences a pointer that it expects to be valid but is NULL.

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