CVE-2025-68241
14h21 +00:00
CVE の説明
ipv4: route: Prevent rt_bind_exception() from rebinding stale fnhe
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ipv4: route: Prevent rt_bind_exception() from rebinding stale fnhe The sit driver's packet transmission path calls: sit_tunnel_xmit() -> update_or_create_fnhe(), which lead to fnhe_remove_oldest() being called to delete entries exceeding FNHE_RECLAIM_DEPTH+random. The race window is between fnhe_remove_oldest() selecting fnheX for deletion and the subsequent kfree_rcu(). During this time, the concurrent path's __mkroute_output() -> find_exception() can fetch the soon-to-be-deleted fnheX, and rt_bind_exception() then binds it with a new dst using a dst_hold(). When the original fnheX is freed via RCU, the dst reference remains permanently leaked. CPU 0 CPU 1 __mkroute_output() find_exception() [fnheX] update_or_create_fnhe() fnhe_remove_oldest() [fnheX] rt_bind_exception() [bind dst] RCU callback [fnheX freed, dst leak] This issue manifests as a device reference count leak and a warning in dmesg when unregistering the net device: unregister_netdevice: waiting for sitX to become free. Usage count = N Ido Schimmel provided the simple test validation method [1]. The fix clears 'oldest->fnhe_daddr' before calling fnhe_flush_routes(). Since rt_bind_exception() checks this field, setting it to zero prevents the stale fnhe from being reused and bound to a new dst just before it is freed. [1] ip netns add ns1 ip -n ns1 link set dev lo up ip -n ns1 address add 192.0.2.1/32 dev lo ip -n ns1 link add name dummy1 up type dummy ip -n ns1 route add 192.0.2.2/32 dev dummy1 ip -n ns1 link add name gretap1 up arp off type gretap \ local 192.0.2.1 remote 192.0.2.2 ip -n ns1 route add 198.51.0.0/16 dev gretap1 taskset -c 0 ip netns exec ns1 mausezahn gretap1 \ -A 198.51.100.1 -B 198.51.0.0/16 -t udp -p 1000 -c 0 -q & taskset -c 2 ip netns exec ns1 mausezahn gretap1 \ -A 198.51.100.1 -B 198.51.0.0/16 -t udp -p 1000 -c 0 -q & sleep 10 ip netns pids ns1 | xargs kill ip netns del ns1CVE の情報
メトリクス
| メトリクス | スコア | 深刻度 | CVSS ベクター | 出典 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| V3.1 | 7.5 | HIGH |
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
詳細情報
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. 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 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. 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 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. |
