CVE-2026-72139 : 상세 정보

CVE-2026-72139

9.8
/
긴급
2026-08-15
06h21 +00:00
Network
2026-08-17
06h18 +00:00
특정 CVE 알림
특정 CVE의 변경 사항에 대한 정보를 받아보세요.
알림 관리

CVE 설명

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: tcp: defer md5sig_info kfree past RCU grace period in tcp_connect The md5+ao reconciliation in tcp_connect() (net/ipv4/tcp_output.c) has two symmetric branches: if (needs_md5) { tcp_ao_destroy_sock(sk, false); } else if (needs_ao) { tcp_clear_md5_list(sk); kfree(rcu_replace_pointer(tp->md5sig_info, NULL, ...)); } Both branches free a per-socket auth-info object while the socket is in TCP_SYN_SENT and is already on the inet ehash (inserted by inet_hash_connect() in tcp_v4_connect()). Both branches are reachable by softirq RX-path readers that load the corresponding info pointer via implicit RCU before bh_lock_sock_nested() is taken. The needs_md5 branch is fixed in the prior patch by re-introducing the call_rcu() free in tcp_ao_destroy_sock(): the equivalent per-key loop runs inside tcp_ao_info_free_rcu(), the RCU callback, so by the time it frees each tcp_ao_key all softirq readers that captured the container have already completed rcu_read_unlock(). The needs_ao branch is not symmetric in the same way. The container free can be deferred via kfree_rcu(md5sig, rcu) -- struct tcp_md5sig_info already has the required rcu member (include/net/tcp.h:1999-2002), and the rest of the tree already does this in the tcp_md5sig_info_add() rollback paths (net/ipv4/tcp_ipv4.c:1410, 1436). But the per-key teardown is done by tcp_clear_md5_list() in process context BEFORE the container's RCU grace period: it walks &md5sig->head and frees each tcp_md5sig_key with bare hlist_del + kfree. A concurrent softirq reader in __tcp_md5_do_lookup() / __tcp_md5_do_lookup_exact() (tcp_ipv4.c:1253, 1298) walks the same list via hlist_for_each_entry_rcu() and races with that bare kfree on the keys themselves -- a per-key slab use-after-free of the same class as the TCP-AO bug, on the same race window. Fix this in two halves: 1. Convert the bare kfree() in tcp_connect() to kfree_rcu() so the md5sig_info container joins the rest of the md5sig lifecycle. The local-variable lift is mechanical and required because kfree_rcu() is a macro that expects an lvalue. 2. Make tcp_clear_md5_list() RCU-safe by replacing hlist_del + kfree(key) with hlist_del_rcu + kfree_rcu(key, rcu). struct tcp_md5sig_key already carries the rcu member (include/net/tcp.h:1995) and tcp_md5_do_del() (net/ipv4/tcp_ipv4.c:1456) already uses kfree_rcu, so this restores the lifecycle invariant the rest of the file follows rather than introducing a one-off. The other caller of tcp_clear_md5_list() is tcp_md5_destruct_sock() (net/ipv4/tcp.c:412), which runs from the sock destructor when the socket is already unhashed and unreachable; the extra grace period there is unnecessary but harmless. Making the helper unconditionally RCU-safe is the cleaner contract. The needs_ao branch is not reachable by the userns reproducer used to demonstrate the AO-side splat (the repro installs both keys but ends up in the needs_md5 branch because the connect peer matches the MD5 key, not the AO key); however the symmetric race exists and a maintainer touching this code should not have to think about which branch escapes RCU and which one does not. [also credits to Qihang, who found that this races with tcp-diag]

CVE 정보

메트릭

메트릭 점수 심각도 CVSS 벡터 출처
V3.1 9.8 CRITICAL CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

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

참고 자료