CVE-2022-49789
Descriptions du CVE
scsi: zfcp: Fix double free of FSF request when qdio send fails
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: scsi: zfcp: Fix double free of FSF request when qdio send fails We used to use the wrong type of integer in 'zfcp_fsf_req_send()' to cache the FSF request ID when sending a new FSF request. This is used in case the sending fails and we need to remove the request from our internal hash table again (so we don't keep an invalid reference and use it when we free the request again). In 'zfcp_fsf_req_send()' we used to cache the ID as 'int' (signed and 32 bit wide), but the rest of the zfcp code (and the firmware specification) handles the ID as 'unsigned long'/'u64' (unsigned and 64 bit wide [s390x ELF ABI]). For one this has the obvious problem that when the ID grows past 32 bit (this can happen reasonably fast) it is truncated to 32 bit when storing it in the cache variable and so doesn't match the original ID anymore. The second less obvious problem is that even when the original ID has not yet grown past 32 bit, as soon as the 32nd bit is set in the original ID (0x80000000 = 2'147'483'648) we will have a mismatch when we cast it back to 'unsigned long'. As the cached variable is of a signed type, the compiler will choose a sign-extending instruction to load the 32 bit variable into a 64 bit register (e.g.: 'lgf %r11,188(%r15)'). So once we pass the cached variable into 'zfcp_reqlist_find_rm()' to remove the request again all the leading zeros will be flipped to ones to extend the sign and won't match the original ID anymore (this has been observed in practice). If we can't successfully remove the request from the hash table again after 'zfcp_qdio_send()' fails (this happens regularly when zfcp cannot notify the adapter about new work because the adapter is already gone during e.g. a ChpID toggle) we will end up with a double free. We unconditionally free the request in the calling function when 'zfcp_fsf_req_send()' fails, but because the request is still in the hash table we end up with a stale memory reference, and once the zfcp adapter is either reset during recovery or shutdown we end up freeing the same memory twice. The resulting stack traces vary depending on the kernel and have no direct correlation to the place where the bug occurs. Here are three examples that have been seen in practice: list_del corruption. next->prev should be 00000001b9d13800, but was 00000000dead4ead. (next=00000001bd131a00) ------------[ cut here ]------------ kernel BUG at lib/list_debug.c:62! monitor event: 0040 ilc:2 [#1] PREEMPT SMP Modules linked in: ... CPU: 9 PID: 1617 Comm: zfcperp0.0.1740 Kdump: loaded Hardware name: ... Krnl PSW : 0704d00180000000 00000003cbeea1f8 (__list_del_entry_valid+0x98/0x140) R:0 T:1 IO:1 EX:1 Key:0 M:1 W:0 P:0 AS:3 CC:1 PM:0 RI:0 EA:3 Krnl GPRS: 00000000916d12f1 0000000080000000 000000000000006d 00000003cb665cd6 0000000000000001 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 00000000d28d21e8 00000000d3844000 00000380099efd28 00000001bd131a00 00000001b9d13800 00000000d3290100 0000000000000000 00000003cbeea1f4 00000380099efc70 Krnl Code: 00000003cbeea1e8: c020004f68a7 larl %r2,00000003cc8d7336 00000003cbeea1ee: c0e50027fd65 brasl %r14,00000003cc3e9cb8 #00000003cbeea1f4: af000000 mc 0,0 >00000003cbeea1f8: c02000920440 larl %r2,00000003cd12aa78 00000003cbeea1fe: c0e500289c25 brasl %r14,00000003cc3fda48 00000003cbeea204: b9040043 lgr %r4,%r3 00000003cbeea208: b9040051 lgr %r5,%r1 00000003cbeea20c: b9040032 lgr %r3,%r2 Call Trace: [<00000003cbeea1f8>] __list_del_entry_valid+0x98/0x140 ([<00000003cbeea1f4>] __list_del_entry_valid+0x94/0x140) [<000003ff7ff502fe>] zfcp_fsf_req_dismiss_all+0xde/0x150 [zfcp] [<000003ff7ff49cd0>] zfcp_erp_strategy_do_action+0x160/0x280 [zfcp] ---truncated---Informations du CVE
Faiblesses connexes
| Nom de la faiblesse | Source | |
|---|---|---|
| Double Free The product calls free() twice on the same memory address. |
Métriques
| Métriques | Score | Gravité | CVSS Vecteur | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| V3.1 | 7 | HIGH |
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
More informations
Base: Exploitabilty MetricsThe 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. High successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. 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 MetricsThe 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 MetricsThe 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 MetricsThe 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 MetricsThese 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. |
|
| 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 MetricsThe 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 MetricsThe 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 MetricsThe 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 MetricsThe 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 MetricsThese 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
Score EPSS
Percentile EPSS
Products Mentioned
Configuraton 0
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 2.6.34 To (excluding) 5.4.225
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.5 To (excluding) 5.10.156
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.11 To (excluding) 5.15.80
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.16 To (excluding) 6.0.10
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.1
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.1
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.1
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.1
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.1
