CVE 설명

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net: thunderbolt: Tear down DMA paths before stopping the rings tbnet_tear_down() stops both rings and frees their frame buffers before calling tb_xdomain_disable_paths(). tb_ring_stop() zeroes the ring's descriptor base and tbnet_free_buffers() unmaps and frees the pages the frames sit in, so by the time __tb_path_deactivate_hop() polls the hop's 'pending' bit, anything still in flight has nowhere to drain to. The teardown sequence has been in this order since the driver was added. The setup path has not: commit ff7cd07f3064 ("net: thunderbolt: Enable DMA paths only after rings are enabled") moved the path enable to the end of tbnet_connected_work() and documented why: /* Both logins successful so enable the rings, high-speed DMA * paths and start the network device queue. * * Note we enable the DMA paths last to make sure we have primed * the Rx ring before any incoming packets are allowed to * arrive. */ Teardown was never updated to match, so the rings and the paths now come down in the same order they go up instead of in reverse. On an ASMedia ASM4242 host router the 'pending' bit then never clears: every teardown burns the full 500 ms timeout and __tb_path_deactivate_hop() returns -ETIMEDOUT. Raising the timeout to 5 s does not help, so the hop is not slow to drain, it never drains at all. The failure is invisible above the thunderbolt core. __tb_path_deactivate_hops() is void and only calls tb_port_warn(); tb_path_deactivate(), tb_tunnel_deactivate() and __tb_disconnect_xdomain_paths() are void as well, and tb_disconnect_xdomain_paths() ends in an unconditional "return 0". So tb_xdomain_disable_paths() reports success and the netdev_warn() below it never fires. Repeated teardowns eventually take the XDomain control channel down, after which the peer node is gone and only a power cycle brings the controller back. Deactivating the paths first fixes it. Measured with kretprobes on a stock v6.17 tree with no other patches applied, on a link that was up and had just carried traffic: before: __tb_path_deactivate_hop() returns 0 for the first hop, then -ETIMEDOUT for the second 500335 us later after: 0 for both, 525 us apart Alternating the two orderings ABBA over three load levels, four teardowns per arm: every teardown failed before the change (21 of 21 that ran), none failed after (0 of 24). The before arms ran short because the link died partway through. The same split shows up when the interface is enslaved to a bond instead of just brought down, which is how I ran into this in the first place. Throughput and latency after the change are unchanged. Hosts whose routers drain the hop despite the stale descriptor base see no functional difference, since the paths end up deactivated either way.

CVE 정보

메트릭

메트릭	점수	심각도	CVSS 벡터	출처
V3.1	8.8	HIGH	CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/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. Adjacent The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack, but the attack is limited at the protocol level to a logically adjacent topology. This can mean an attack must be launched from the same shared physical (e.g., Bluetooth or IEEE 802.11) or logical (e.g., local IP subnet) network, or from within a secure or otherwise limited administrative domain (e.g., MPLS, secure VPN to an administrative network zone). 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