CVE-2026-97941 : 상세 정보

CVE-2026-97941

7.8
/
높음
2026-09-25
11h17 +00:00
Local
2026-10-19
10h17 +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: mm/slab: take n->list_lock in __slab_try_return_freelist() to avoid race Commit ba7425312607 ("mm, slab: add an optimistic __slab_try_return_freelist()") incorrectly assumed that nobody has freed an object to the slab as long as slab->freelist is NULL and cmpxchg succeeds. However, as reported by Hyunwoo Kim [1], other CPUs might have freed an object to the slab, insert the slab to the partial list, then allocated an object from the slab, and be in the middle of removing the slab from the list under n->list_lock. Since __refill_objects_node() puts the slab back on pc.slabs outside n->list_lock, it might insert the slab into that list while the slab is concurrently being removed from n->partial. This led to a list corruption [1]: list_add corruption. next->prev should be prev (ffff888100000248), but was dead000000000122. (next=ffffea000416e410). kernel BUG at lib/list_debug.c:29! Oops: invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] SMP NOPTI CPU: 1 UID: 65534 PID: 144 Comm: poc Not tainted 7.2.0-16172-gcf72cbb39da8-dirty #1 PREEMPT(lazy) RIP: 0010:__list_add_valid_or_report+0x80/0xd0 ... Call Trace: alloc_from_new_slab+0x183/0x300 ___slab_alloc+0x31c/0x890 __kmalloc_noprof+0x3d4/0x800 lsm_blob_alloc+0x2d/0x50 security_msg_msg_alloc+0x26/0x90 load_msg+0x1aa/0x210 do_msgsnd+0x91/0x800 do_syscall_64+0x109/0x5d0 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x77/0x7f ... Kernel panic - not syncing: Fatal exception This is a classic ABA problem where cmpxchg succeeds but the state has changed since __refill_objects_node() took the freelist from the slab. As Vlastimil Babka mentioned [2], it should be rare to return more than one slab (due to the racy read of slab->counters in get_partial_node_bulk()). Therefore, instead of introducing additional complexity, acquire and release n->list_lock twice in the worst case. Return the slab directly to the partial list and hold n->list_lock across the cmpxchg and add_partial(). This is similar to the initial version of commit ba7425312607 [3]. This is enough to avoid the race as the list manipulation is serialized by n->list_lock. While at it, bring back unlikely() hint now that the condition is unlikely.

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

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

참고 자료