CVE-2026-89675 : Detail

CVE-2026-89675

9.8
/
Kritis
2026-09-11
20h19 +00:00
Network
2026-10-19
09h18 +00:00
Notifikasi untuk CVE tertentu
Tetap terinformasi tentang perubahan untuk CVE tertentu.
Kelola notifikasi

Deskripsi CVE

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: nfsd: fix UAF in async copy cancel and shutdown An async copy could be freed or used after free while a teardown caller (OFFLOAD_CANCEL, nfsd4_shutdown_copy, nfsd4_cancel_copy_by_sb) raced the copy kthread: - find_async_copy() bumped copy->refcount but left the copy on clp->async_copies, so the reaper's cleanup_async_copy() could run release_copy_files() concurrently with a cancel/shutdown caller. Both put and NULL nf_src/nf_dst without a common lock, double-putting the nfsd_file and freeing it early. - nfsd4_do_async_copy() set NFSD4_COPY_F_STOPPED before its final uses of the copy (nfsd_update_cmtime_attr() on copy->nf_dst, nfsd4_send_cb_offload()). nfsd4_stop_copy() treats a set STOPPED bit as "kthread done, skip kthread_stop()", so a teardown caller ran release_copy_files() -- which puts and NULLs nf_dst -- while the kthread still dereferenced it (NULL/UAF). - copy->copy_task was never pinned. The one-shot kthread self-reaps on return, so kthread_stop()'s get_task_struct() could touch a freed task_struct. - co_cb is embedded in the copy, but nfsd4_send_cb_offload() held a reference only on the client, so a concurrent teardown could free the copy while the CB_OFFLOAD callback was in flight. Fix the teardown lifetime as a whole: - find_async_copy() unlinks the copy (clear cp_clp, list_del_init) under async_lock; the cancel, shutdown, and sb-cancel paths drop the list-membership reference via nfs4_put_copy() after nfsd4_stop_copy(). Drop the now-redundant list_del fixup from cleanup_async_copy(). - Because unlinking hides the copy from the reaper, its cleanup_async_copy() can no longer remove the copy's s2s_cp_stateids entry; the cancel/shutdown/sb-cancel paths now call nfs4_free_copy_state() themselves (while cp_clp is still valid) so the entry does not dangle at freed memory for the laundromat and manage_cpntf_state() to dereference. - Give the kthread its own reference, taken in nfsd4_copy() before wake_up_process() and dropped at the end of nfsd4_do_async_copy(); call wake_up_process() before list_add(). - Pin the task_struct with get_task_struct() in nfsd4_copy(), released in nfs4_put_copy(), so kthread_stop() is safe whenever the kthread exits. Set NFSD4_COPY_F_STOPPED only in nfsd4_stop_copy(), which now always kthread_stop()s before release_copy_files(); completion is still reported via NFSD4_COPY_F_COMPLETED, so nfsd4_has_active_async_copies() is unaffected. Each teardown caller removes the copy from clp->async_copies first, so kthread_stop() runs exactly once. - Take a copy reference in nfsd4_send_cb_offload(), dropped in nfsd4_cb_offload_release(). The kthread still holds its own reference there, so the refcount_inc() cannot race the final free. - Read cp_clp with smp_load_acquire() to pair with the unordered set_bit()/clear_bit() writers (Documentation/atomic_bitops.rst).

Informasi CVE

Metrik

Metrik Skor Tingkat keparahan CVSS Vektor Sumber
V3.1 9.8 CRITICAL CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

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

Referensi