CVE 설명

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mac802154: fix use-after-free of sdata via queued RX frames The RX softirq producer ieee802154_subif_frame() queues received beacon and MAC-command frames onto local->rx_beacon_list / rx_mac_cmd_list and schedules a process-context worker, storing a raw mac_pkt->sdata (and skb->dev == sdata->dev) with neither a reference nor any locking: - the lists have no lock: the softirq producer list_add_tail()s while the mac_wq worker list_del()s, so sibling interfaces on the same phy corrupt the list; - the workers dereference the interface after it may have been freed. mac802154_rx_mac_cmd_worker() touches mac_pkt->sdata directly, and mac802154_rx_beacon_worker() -> mac802154_process_beacon() dereferences skb->dev (== sdata->dev). Removing an interface frees its sdata (netdev_priv) while a queued frame still points at it, so a later worker run is a use-after-free. Reproduced under KASAN by flooding a victim interface with MAC command frames and removing it (the beacon path is the same class via skb->dev): BUG: KASAN: slab-use-after-free in mac802154_rx_mac_cmd_worker+0x463/0x630 [mac802154] Read of size 4 at addr ffff888002f9ea18 by task kworker/u8:1/31 Workqueue: phy0-mac-cmds mac802154_rx_mac_cmd_worker [mac802154] Call Trace: mac802154_rx_mac_cmd_worker+0x463/0x630 [mac802154] process_one_work+0x611/0xe80 worker_thread+0x52e/0xdc0 kthread+0x30c/0x630 ret_from_fork+0x2fd/0x3e0 Fix both lists together: - add local->rx_lock and take it around every list access: the softirq producer (plain spin_lock, softirq context) and the workers and flush (spin_lock_bh, process context); - pin the interface for the lifetime of a queued frame with netdev_hold()/netdev_put(), so the worker can safely dereference sdata / skb->dev even while the interface is being removed; - dequeue under the lock at the head and loop-drain the whole list in the workers (they previously processed one frame per run and relied on a later enqueue to drain the rest); - drop not-yet-started frames of an interface before it is unregistered, from ieee802154_if_remove() (after the RCU grace period) and from the ieee802154_remove_interfaces() loop -- the latter is the whole-phy teardown path, which does not go through ieee802154_if_remove(). An in-flight worker that already dequeued a frame keeps its own netdev reference; unregister_netdevice() then waits it out in netdev_run_todo(), which runs at rtnl_unlock() (rtnl released) and after the interface has been closed, so it does not pin rtnl. A worker blocked in an association TX only delays that one interface's unregister (the usual "waiting for %s to become free"), it does not hold rtnl. netdev_hold() is used for this reason instead of a cancel_work_sync() under rtnl, which would block on the worker's unbounded MLME TX wait via ieee802154_sync_queue(). The mac-command worker additionally skips processing for a stopped interface (ieee802154_sdata_running()), avoiding a needless association response during teardown.

CVE 정보

메트릭

메트릭	점수	심각도	CVSS 벡터	출처
V3.1	7.5	HIGH	CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/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. High successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. 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