CVE-2026-98256 : 상세 정보

CVE-2026-98256

7.8
/
높음
2026-10-06
09h18 +00:00
Local
2026-10-19
10h18 +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: signal: Prevent exec() race Hyunwoo debugged the following KASAN UAF splat: BUG: KASAN: slab-use-after-free in __send_signal_locked+0xb27/0xba0 Write of size 8 at addr ffff888007ed80c8 by task poc/79 ... Call Trace: __send_signal_locked+0xb27/0xba0 do_send_sig_info+0xa7/0x160 do_send_specific+0x76/0xa0 __x64_sys_tgkill+0x193/0x270 ... Allocated by task 80: do_timer_create+0x1a4/0x1030 __x64_sys_timer_create+0x145/0x190 ... Freed by task 12: kmem_cache_free_bulk+0x1f8/0x4a0 kvfree_rcu_bulk+0x14f/0x1c0 kfree_rcu_work+0x128/0x1a0 ... Last potentially related work creation: kvfree_call_rcu+0x39/0x390 __flush_itimer_signals+0x211/0x320 flush_itimer_signals+0x47/0x90 begin_new_exec+0xa6b/0x28c0 It turned out that this happens with a non-leader exec() as Hyunwoo explained: de_thread() calls exchange_tids() before release_task(leader), so the struct pid held by a SIGEV_THREAD_ID timer created against the leader's tid now points to the thread which called execve(). pid_task() returns that thread and lock_task_sighand() on it succeeds. If the timer signal is blocked, its sigqueue stays queued on the leader's task::pending. The next expiry of that timer can then run while release_task() flushes the queue. posixtimer_send_sigqueue() checks whether the sigqueue is already queued with a plain list_empty(), which only reads list_head::next. list_del_init() is not atomic and INIT_LIST_HEAD() stores list_head::next before list_head::prev, so the check can pass in between. list_add_tail() queues the entry on the task::pending of the live thread, and the list_head::prev store from the flush then overwrites the list_head::prev link that list_add_tail() has just set. __flush_itimer_signals() does not undo that either. With list_head::prev pointing at the entry itself, its list_del_init() only stores the same values again, so the entry is not removed from the list. It is still there after the last reference is dropped and the timer is freed by RCU, and the list_add_tail() of a later tgkill() follows that list_head::prev into the freed timer. This problem surfaced with the recent commit which moved the sigqueue flush out of the sighand lock held region. Hyonwoo proposed to fix this by using list_del_init_careful(), but that just papers over the problem. After some disucssions and various attempts to solve it, Eric pointed out that there is no reason to flush task::pending late in release_task() and it should be done in exit_signals() already. As nothing can collect and deliver signals which are queued in a dying task's pending queue, there is no reason to delay it further. But it has to be ensured that no signals can be queued into it after that point. exit_signals() sets PF_EXITING in task::flags, which can be used as an indicator for this. Cure it by: - Preventing signal queueing for task private signals (PIDTYPE_PID) when the task has PF_EXITING set in __send_signal_locked() and in posixtimer_send_sigqueue(). - Protecting the unlocked setting of PF_EXITING in exit_signals() for the task group empty and the group exit case with sighand lock - Flushing task::pending signals right there. Optimize that by moving the whole pending list to an on-stack list head under sighand lock and free the signals without the lock held. There has been quite some discussion about the lockless flush and the non-leader exec case on weakly ordered systems. The problem is that a third party which tries to send a posix timer signal relies on the PID lookup to find the target task and that lookup might result in the new leader when the signal was originaly directed to the old leader. In case that the signal was queued on the old leader then the lockless flush raised a concern over the following situation: old_leader new_leader third party A: flush_list() // list_del_in ---truncated---

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