CVE の説明

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ALSA: bcd2000: clear the URB pointers on disconnect bcd2000_free_usb_related_resources() frees both URBs and leaves the pointers behind: usb_kill_urb(bcd2k->midi_out_urb); usb_kill_urb(bcd2k->midi_in_urb); usb_free_urb(bcd2k->midi_out_urb); usb_free_urb(bcd2k->midi_in_urb); The rawmidi device outlives that call. A substream that is still open when the device is unplugged reaches bcd2000_midi_send() from the trigger path on close. That function writes to the freed URB and then hands it to the USB core: bcd2k->midi_out_urb->transfer_buffer_length = BUFSIZE; ... ret = usb_submit_urb(bcd2k->midi_out_urb, GFP_ATOMIC); usb_kill_urb() does not stop a later submission either, so a submit that races the disconnect can requeue the URB after it has been reaped. midi_in_urb is exposed the same way: bcd2000_input_complete() resubmits it from the completion handler. KASAN on 7.2.0-rc5 (arm64): BUG: KASAN: slab-use-after-free in bcd2000_midi_send [snd_bcd2000] Write of size 4 at addr ffff00001827d388 by task bpoc/168 __asan_store4 bcd2000_midi_send [snd_bcd2000] bcd2000_midi_output_trigger [snd_bcd2000] snd_rawmidi_kernel_write1 close_substream.part.0 Freed by task 168: usb_free_urb bcd2000_disconnect [snd_bcd2000] BUG: KASAN: slab-use-after-free in usb_submit_urb Read of size 8 at addr ffff00001827d3b8 by task bpoc/168 Clear both pointers after freeing and test them on the paths that can still run. Poison the URBs before freeing them: usb_poison_urb() waits for a running completion handler and rejects any later submission, so after it returns the input path is quiesced and only the rawmidi trigger path can still reach bcd2000_midi_send(). No unpoison is needed; the URBs are freed on the next line. Discovered by XBOW, triaged by Baul Lee

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	7.8	HIGH	CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/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. 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. 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. 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 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