CVE の説明

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: IB/isert: reject PDUs declaring more data than was received isert_recv_done() hands each received PDU to the opcode handlers without ever looking at wc->byte_len, the number of bytes the HCA actually placed in the receive descriptor. The handlers then copy that many bytes - the data-segment length the initiator declared in the BHS (ntoh24(hdr->dlength), via the derived unsol_data_len / imm_data_len) - out of the fixed-size descriptor: isert_handle_iscsi_dataout(): sg_copy_from_buffer(sg_start, sg_nents, isert_get_data(rx_desc), unsol_data_len); isert_handle_scsi_cmd(): sg_copy_from_buffer(cmd->se_cmd.t_data_sg, sg_nents, isert_get_data(rx_desc), imm_data_len); Because the declared length is never checked against wc->byte_len, an initiator can declare a data segment larger than the bytes it actually sent (and larger than the descriptor) and cause an out-of-bounds read of the receive buffer. Nothing upstream of isert closes this door: - __iscsit_check_dataout_hdr() bounds the inbound payload against conn_ops->MaxXmitDataSegmentLength (MXDSL) - a transmit parameter, used here for the inbound check. - iscsi_set_connection_parameters() sets ops->MaxXmitDataSegmentLength = ops->TargetRecvDataSegmentLength; and TARGETRECVDATASEGMENTLENGTH is absent from the min()-clamp list in iscsi_check_acceptor_state(), so the value the initiator declares is adopted verbatim (type range 512..16777215). The initiator effectively raises its own ceiling. - isert never clamps the negotiated value to its own fixed receive descriptor (ISER_RX_SIZE, 9216 bytes), so the target core's bound and the descriptor size are unrelated. The imm_data_len == data_len path is more than an over-read: it aliases the receive descriptor via sg_set_buf() and passes it to the backend as the data source for the SCSI WRITE, so an over-declared length causes heap contents past the descriptor to be written through the backend to the backing store. The backend is the victim of the oversized scatterlist isert hands it, not the cause; no read-back of the written bytes was demonstrated. Trigger: after login completes (full feature phase), an initiator that has declared a large TargetRecvDataSegmentLength and a FirstBurstLength that permits unsolicited/immediate data sends a PDU whose declared data-segment length exceeds what was received. With KASAN: BUG: KASAN: slab-out-of-bounds in sg_copy_buffer+0x150/0x1c0 Read of size 4096 at addr ffff888109720800 by task kworker/1:0H/25 Workqueue: ib-comp-wq ib_cq_poll_work Call Trace: sg_copy_buffer+0x150/0x1c0 isert_recv_done+0xba6/0x2390 __ib_process_cq+0xe1/0x390 ib_cq_poll_work+0x46/0x150 isert_recv_done+0xba6 resolves to isert_handle_iscsi_dataout() (ib_isert.c:1160), inlined through isert_rx_opcode(). Validate wc->byte_len against the framing in isert_recv_done() before the PDU reaches any handler, and reinstate the connection if it is short. Because the test compares without subtracting the header length, it also rejects PDUs shorter than the iSER and iSCSI headers, which would otherwise be parsed out of stale descriptor contents. The login handler rejects PDUs shorter than ISER_HEADERS_LEN (commit 29e7b925ae6d ("IB/isert: Reject login PDUs shorter than ISER_HEADERS_LEN")) but does not bound the declared length either; that is fixed in the next patch. The data handlers had no length check at all. isert reads the data segment from a fixed offset: isert_get_data() returns the iSER header plus ISER_HEADERS_LEN and makes no adjustment for an AHS. The bytes the handlers touch are therefore exactly [ISER_HEADERS_LEN, ISER_HEADERS_LEN + dlength), and comparing that sum against wc->byte_len bounds precisely the region that is read. An AHS term would only make the test stricter without bounding anything furth ---truncated---

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	9.1	CRITICAL	CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/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. 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 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