CVE 설명

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: qede: sync udp_tunnel ports outside qede_lock in the recovery path A TX timeout on a qede NIC that has VXLAN/GENEVE tunnel ports configured wedges the rtnetlink control plane of the whole machine: NETDEV WATCHDOG: ens6f1 (qede): transmit queue 2 timed out 10226 ms [qede_tx_timeout:586(ens6f1)]TX timeout on queue 2! [qede_recovery_handler:2665(ens6f0)]Starting a recovery process The recovery path deadlocks on the driver's own mutex: qede_sp_task rtnl_lock() mutex_lock(&edev->qede_lock) <- taken qede_recovery_handler qede_load udp_tunnel_nic_reset_ntf __udp_tunnel_nic_device_sync info->sync_table == qede_udp_tunnel_sync mutex_lock(&edev->qede_lock) <- same task: deadlock The mutex is not recursive, so the kworker blocks on itself with rtnl_lock held, and neither lock is ever released. Every task that calls rtnl_lock() afterwards (ip, ovs-vswitchd, lldpad, IPv6 addrconf, sshd) blocks forever while the node still answers ping. In a vmcore from an affected production node rtnl_mutex.owner decodes to the very kworker blocked at the innermost mutex_lock() above. Re-sync the tunnel ports from qede_sp_task() after the internal lock is dropped, still under rtnl_lock as the udp_tunnel API requires. This mirrors qede_open(), which calls udp_tunnel_nic_reset_ntf() under rtnl without the internal lock. qede_recovery_handler() now returns whether it has successfully reloaded an open device, and the caller re-syncs the ports only in that case. This keeps the old gating exactly: a device that was down or a failed recovery returns false, as those paths never reached the udp_tunnel_nic_reset_ntf() call before either. This was the only user of the qede_lock()/qede_unlock() helpers, so remove them.

CVE 정보

메트릭

메트릭	점수	심각도	CVSS 벡터	출처
V3.1	7.5	HIGH	CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H 추가 정보 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. None There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component. 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