CVE 설명

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net/sched: cls_api: Always acquire rtnl_lock when destroying locked classifiers Another challenge with unlocked filters. There is a short window in tc_new_tfilter where a tcf_proto can be found and briefly referenced by a totally unrelated, unlocked classifier's request and cause a race. Feng created a poc which created this race with two threads, one creating a u32 filter and other a flower filter in the same chain/prio: 1. Both threads enter tc_new_tfilter, both find the chain empty, both drop filter_chain_lock 2. u32 finishes tcf_proto_create("u32") first, calls tcf_chain_tp_insert_unique() -> inserts u32_tp into the chain 3. flower finishes tcf_proto_create("flower") later, calls tcf_chain_tp_insert_unique() -> tcf_chain_tp_find() now sees u32_tp already there, takes a reference on it, destroys flower's own tp_new and returns u32_tp to the caller. Flower then hits the kind mismatch check (because it requested for kind "flower" but tp->ops->kind is "u32") and goes through the errout path which calls tcf_proto_put() on u32_tp. If the u32 thread has already gone through its own errout (its change() call failed on the PoC's empty options) and dropped its create and insert refs, flower's put is the last one and drops u32_tp's refcnt to zero. At this point tp->ops->destroy() runs in a context that never took rtnl_lock. When that happens, it might cause a UAF like the following (illustrated by the PoC): [ +0.000710] BUG: KASAN: slab-use-after-free in u32_init (net/sched/cls_u32.c:393) [ +0.000281] Read of size 8 at addr ffff888120022f00 by task poc_feng_xue/524 Call Trace: u32_init (net/sched/cls_u32.c:393) tc_new_tfilter (net/sched/cls_api.c:2378) Allocated by task 526: u32_init (net/sched/cls_u32.c:378) tc_new_tfilter (net/sched/cls_api.c:2378) Freed by task 522: kfree u32_destroy (net/sched/cls_u32.c:662) tcf_proto_destroy (net/sched/cls_api.c:446) tcf_proto_put (net/sched/cls_api.c:459) tc_new_tfilter (net/sched/cls_api.c:2459) Fix this by having tcf_proto_destroy() take rtnl_lock around tp->ops->destroy() for locked classifiers whenever rtnl is not held. To explain why I used a temp variable "not_lockless" I'd like to point to a semi-related note on rtnl_held vs TCF_PROTO_OPS_DOIT_UNLOCKED (adding here for future cleanup if deemed necessary): The rtnl_held parameter and the TCF_PROTO_OPS_DOIT_UNLOCKED flag are redundant sources of truth for whether rtnl_lock is held. Among the nine classifier destroy(..rtnl_held..) callbacks, only flower consults the rtnl_held parameter which it propagates to tc_setup_cb_destroy() and tc_setup_cb_call(). The other eight (u32, flow, bpf, cgroup, route, basic, fw, mall) ignore it entirely;-> those that call tc_setup_cb_destroy() (u32, bpf, mall) hardcode true always instead of forwarding the parameter. A future cleanup should remove the rtnl_held parameter from the destroy callback signature entirely and have callers rely solely on their knowledge whether they are running in an unlocked context.

CVE 정보

메트릭

메트릭	점수	심각도	CVSS 벡터	출처
V3.1	7.8	HIGH	CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/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. 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