CVE の説明

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: nfs: use nfsi->rwsem to protect traversal of the file lock list Lingfeng identified a bug and suggested two solutions, but both appear to have issues. Generally, we cannot release flc_lock while iterating over the file lock list to avoid use-after-free (UAF) problems with file locks. However, functions like nfs_delegation_claim_locks and nfs4_reclaim_locks cannot adhere to this rule because recover_lock or nfs4_lock_delegation_recall may take a long time. To resolve this, NFS switches to using nfsi->rwsem for the same protection, and nfs_reclaim_locks follows this approach. Although nfs_delegation_claim_locks uses so_delegreturn_mutex instead, this is inadequate since a single inode can have multiple nfs4_state instances. Therefore, the fix is to also use nfsi->rwsem in this case. Furthermore, after commit c69899a17ca4 ("NFSv4: Update of VFS byte range lock must be atomic with the stateid update"), the functions nfs4_locku_done and nfs4_lock_done also break this rule because they call locks_lock_inode_wait without holding nfsi->rwsem. Simply adding this protection could cause many deadlocks, so instead, the call to locks_lock_inode_wait is moved into _nfs4_proc_setlk. Regarding the bug fixed by commit c69899a17ca4 ("NFSv4: Update of VFS byte range lock must be atomic with the stateid update"), it has been resolved after commit 0460253913e5 ("NFSv4: nfs4_do_open() is incorrectly triggering state recovery") because all slots are drained before calling nfs4_do_reclaim, which prevents concurrent stateid changes along this path. Also, nfs_delegation_claim_locks does not cause this concurrency either since when _nfs4_proc_setlk is called with NFS_DELEGATED_STATE, no RPC is sent, so nfs4_lock_done is not called. Therefore, nfs4_lock_delegation_recall from nfs_delegation_claim_locks is the first time the stateid is set.

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	9.8	CRITICAL	CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H 詳細情報 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