CVE Descriptions

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ksmbd: close durable scavenger races against m_fp_list lookups ksmbd_durable_scavenger() has two related races against any walker that iterates f_ci->m_fp_list, including ksmbd_lookup_fd_inode() (used by ksmbd_vfs_rename) and the share-mode checks in fs/smb/server/smb_common.c. (1) fp->node list-head reuse. Durable-preserved handles can remain linked on f_ci->m_fp_list after session teardown so share-mode checks still see them while the handle is reconnectable. The scavenger collected expired handles by adding fp->node to a local scavenger_list after removing them from the global durable idr. Because fp->node is the same list_head used by m_fp_list, list_add(&fp->node, &scavenger_list) overwrites the m_fp_list links and corrupts both lists. CONFIG_DEBUG_LIST can report this on the share-mode walk path. (2) Refcount race against m_fp_list walkers. The scavenger qualifies an expired durable handle with atomic_read(&fp->refcount) > 1 and fp->conn under global_ft.lock, removes fp from global_ft, then drops global_ft.lock before unlinking fp from m_fp_list and freeing it. During that gap fp is still linked on m_fp_list with f_state == FP_INITED. ksmbd_lookup_fd_inode() under m_lock read calls ksmbd_fp_get() (atomic_inc_not_zero on refcount that is still 1) and takes a live reference; the scavenger then unlinks and frees fp while the holder owns a reference, leading to UAF on the holder's subsequent ksmbd_fd_put() and on any field reads performed by a concurrent share-mode walker that iterates m_fp_list without taking ksmbd_fp_get() (smb_check_perm_dleases-like paths). Fix both: * Stop reusing fp->node as a scavenger-private list node. Remove one expired handle from global_ft under global_ft.lock, take an explicit transient reference, drop the lock, unlink fp->node from m_fp_list under f_ci->m_lock, then drop both the durable lifetime and transient references with atomic_sub_and_test(2, &fp->refcount). If the scavenger is the last putter the close runs there; otherwise an in-flight holder that already raced through the m_fp_list lookup owns the final close via its ksmbd_fd_put() path. The one-at-a-time disposal can rescan the durable idr when multiple handles expire in the same pass, but durable scavenging is a background expiration path and the final full scan recomputes min_timeout before the next wait. * Clear fp->persistent_id inside __ksmbd_remove_durable_fd() right after idr_remove(), so a delayed final close from a holder that snatched fp does not re-issue idr_remove() on a persistent id that idr_alloc_cyclic() in ksmbd_open_durable_fd() may have already handed out to a brand-new durable handle. * Bypass the per-conn open_files_count decrement in __put_fd_final() when fp is detached from any session table (fp->conn cleared by session_fd_check() at durable preserve -- paired with the volatile_id clear at unpublish, so checking fp->conn alone is sufficient). The walker that owns the final close runs from an unrelated work->conn whose stats.open_files_count never tracked this durable fp; without this guard the holder would underflow that unrelated counter. The two races are folded into one patch because patch (1) alone cleans up the corrupted list but leaves a deterministic UAF window for m_fp_list walkers that the transient-reference and persistent_id discipline in (2) close; bisecting onto an intermediate state would land on a UAF that pre-patch chaos merely made less reproducible. Validation: * CONFIG_DEBUG_LIST coverage for the list_head reuse path. * KASAN-enabled direct SMB2 durable-handle coverage that exercised ksmbd_durable_scavenger() and non-NULL ksmbd_lookup_fd_inode() returns while durable handles expired under concurrent rename lookups, with no KASAN, UAF, list-corruption, ODEBUG, or WARNING reports. ---truncated---

CVE Informations

Related Weaknesses

CWE-ID	Weakness Name	Source
CWE-416	Use After Free The product reuses or references memory after it has been freed. At some point afterward, the memory may be allocated again and saved in another pointer, while the original pointer references a location somewhere within the new allocation. Any operations using the original pointer are no longer valid because the memory "belongs" to the code that operates on the new pointer.

Metrics

Metrics	Score	Severity	CVSS Vector	Source
V3.1	9.8	CRITICAL	CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/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. 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. 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