CVE-2026-23175
16h27 +00:00
CVE の説明
net: cpsw: Execute ndo_set_rx_mode callback in a work queue
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net: cpsw: Execute ndo_set_rx_mode callback in a work queue Commit 1767bb2d47b7 ("ipv6: mcast: Don't hold RTNL for IPV6_ADD_MEMBERSHIP and MCAST_JOIN_GROUP.") removed the RTNL lock for IPV6_ADD_MEMBERSHIP and MCAST_JOIN_GROUP operations. However, this change triggered the following call trace on my BeagleBone Black board: WARNING: net/8021q/vlan_core.c:236 at vlan_for_each+0x120/0x124, CPU#0: rpcbind/481 RTNL: assertion failed at net/8021q/vlan_core.c (236) Modules linked in: CPU: 0 UID: 997 PID: 481 Comm: rpcbind Not tainted 6.19.0-rc7-next-20260130-yocto-standard+ #35 PREEMPT Hardware name: Generic AM33XX (Flattened Device Tree) Call trace: unwind_backtrace from show_stack+0x28/0x2c show_stack from dump_stack_lvl+0x30/0x38 dump_stack_lvl from __warn+0xb8/0x11c __warn from warn_slowpath_fmt+0x130/0x194 warn_slowpath_fmt from vlan_for_each+0x120/0x124 vlan_for_each from cpsw_add_mc_addr+0x54/0x98 cpsw_add_mc_addr from __hw_addr_ref_sync_dev+0xc4/0xec __hw_addr_ref_sync_dev from __dev_mc_add+0x78/0x88 __dev_mc_add from igmp6_group_added+0x84/0xec igmp6_group_added from __ipv6_dev_mc_inc+0x1fc/0x2f0 __ipv6_dev_mc_inc from __ipv6_sock_mc_join+0x124/0x1b4 __ipv6_sock_mc_join from do_ipv6_setsockopt+0x84c/0x1168 do_ipv6_setsockopt from ipv6_setsockopt+0x88/0xc8 ipv6_setsockopt from do_sock_setsockopt+0xe8/0x19c do_sock_setsockopt from __sys_setsockopt+0x84/0xac __sys_setsockopt from ret_fast_syscall+0x0/0x54 This trace occurs because vlan_for_each() is called within cpsw_ndo_set_rx_mode(), which expects the RTNL lock to be held. Since modifying vlan_for_each() to operate without the RTNL lock is not straightforward, and because ndo_set_rx_mode() is invoked both with and without the RTNL lock across different code paths, simply adding rtnl_lock() in cpsw_ndo_set_rx_mode() is not a viable solution. To resolve this issue, we opt to execute the actual processing within a work queue, following the approach used by the icssg-prueth driver. Please note: To reproduce this issue, I manually reverted the changes to am335x-bone-common.dtsi from commit c477358e66a3 ("ARM: dts: am335x-bone: switch to new cpsw switch drv") in order to revert to the legacy cpsw driver.CVE 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 | HIGH |
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/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. 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. |
