CVE-2023-54149
13h07 +00:00
Deskripsi CVE
net: dsa: avoid suspicious RCU usage for synced VLAN-aware MAC addresses
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net: dsa: avoid suspicious RCU usage for synced VLAN-aware MAC addresses When using the felix driver (the only one which supports UC filtering and MC filtering) as a DSA master for a random other DSA switch, one can see the following stack trace when the downstream switch ports join a VLAN-aware bridge: ============================= WARNING: suspicious RCU usage ----------------------------- net/8021q/vlan_core.c:238 suspicious rcu_dereference_protected() usage! stack backtrace: Workqueue: dsa_ordered dsa_slave_switchdev_event_work Call trace: lockdep_rcu_suspicious+0x170/0x210 vlan_for_each+0x8c/0x188 dsa_slave_sync_uc+0x128/0x178 __hw_addr_sync_dev+0x138/0x158 dsa_slave_set_rx_mode+0x58/0x70 __dev_set_rx_mode+0x88/0xa8 dev_uc_add+0x74/0xa0 dsa_port_bridge_host_fdb_add+0xec/0x180 dsa_slave_switchdev_event_work+0x7c/0x1c8 process_one_work+0x290/0x568 What it's saying is that vlan_for_each() expects rtnl_lock() context and it's not getting it, when it's called from the DSA master's ndo_set_rx_mode(). The caller of that - dsa_slave_set_rx_mode() - is the slave DSA interface's dsa_port_bridge_host_fdb_add() which comes from the deferred dsa_slave_switchdev_event_work(). We went to great lengths to avoid the rtnl_lock() context in that call path in commit 0faf890fc519 ("net: dsa: drop rtnl_lock from dsa_slave_switchdev_event_work"), and calling rtnl_lock() is simply not an option due to the possibility of deadlocking when calling dsa_flush_workqueue() from the call paths that do hold rtnl_lock() - basically all of them. So, when the DSA master calls vlan_for_each() from its ndo_set_rx_mode(), the state of the 8021q driver on this device is really not protected from concurrent access by anything. Looking at net/8021q/, I don't think that vlan_info->vid_list was particularly designed with RCU traversal in mind, so introducing an RCU read-side form of vlan_for_each() - vlan_for_each_rcu() - won't be so easy, and it also wouldn't be exactly what we need anyway. In general I believe that the solution isn't in net/8021q/ anyway; vlan_for_each() is not cut out for this task. DSA doesn't need rtnl_lock() to be held per se - since it's not a netdev state change that we're blocking, but rather, just concurrent additions/removals to a VLAN list. We don't even need sleepable context - the callback of vlan_for_each() just schedules deferred work. The proposed escape is to remove the dependency on vlan_for_each() and to open-code a non-sleepable, rtnl-free alternative to that, based on copies of the VLAN list modified from .ndo_vlan_rx_add_vid() and .ndo_vlan_rx_kill_vid().Informasi CVE
Metrik
| Metrik | Skor | Tingkat keparahan | CVSS Vektor | Sumber |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| V3.1 | 7.5 | HIGH |
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Informasi lebih lanjut
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. Adjacent The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack, but the attack is limited at the protocol level to a logically adjacent topology. This can mean an attack must be launched from the same shared physical (e.g., Bluetooth or IEEE 802.11) or logical (e.g., local IP subnet) network, or from within a secure or otherwise limited administrative domain (e.g., MPLS, secure VPN to an administrative network zone). 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. 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 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. |
