简体中文

CVE-2023-52587：详情

CVE-2023-52587

5.5
/
中危
0.01%V4
2024-03-06
07h15 +00:00
Local
2025-02-14
16h39 +00:00
CVE.org
NVD
指定 CVE 通知
随时了解指定 CVE 的变更。
管理通知

CVE 描述

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: IB/ipoib: Fix mcast list locking Releasing the `priv->lock` while iterating the `priv->multicast_list` in `ipoib_mcast_join_task()` opens a window for `ipoib_mcast_dev_flush()` to remove the items while in the middle of iteration. If the mcast is removed while the lock was dropped, the for loop spins forever resulting in a hard lockup (as was reported on RHEL 4.18.0-372.75.1.el8_6 kernel): Task A (kworker/u72:2 below) | Task B (kworker/u72:0 below) -----------------------------------+----------------------------------- ipoib_mcast_join_task(work) | ipoib_ib_dev_flush_light(work) spin_lock_irq(&priv->lock) | __ipoib_ib_dev_flush(priv, ...) list_for_each_entry(mcast, | ipoib_mcast_dev_flush(dev = priv->dev) &priv->multicast_list, list) | ipoib_mcast_join(dev, mcast) | spin_unlock_irq(&priv->lock) | | spin_lock_irqsave(&priv->lock, flags) | list_for_each_entry_safe(mcast, tmcast, | &priv->multicast_list, list) | list_del(&mcast->list); | list_add_tail(&mcast->list, &remove_list) | spin_unlock_irqrestore(&priv->lock, flags) spin_lock_irq(&priv->lock) | | ipoib_mcast_remove_list(&remove_list) (Here, `mcast` is no longer on the | list_for_each_entry_safe(mcast, tmcast, `priv->multicast_list` and we keep | remove_list, list) spinning on the `remove_list` of | >>> wait_for_completion(&mcast->done) the other thread which is blocked | and the list is still valid on | it's stack.) Fix this by keeping the lock held and changing to GFP_ATOMIC to prevent eventual sleeps. Unfortunately we could not reproduce the lockup and confirm this fix but based on the code review I think this fix should address such lockups. crash> bc 31 PID: 747 TASK: ff1c6a1a007e8000 CPU: 31 COMMAND: "kworker/u72:2" -- [exception RIP: ipoib_mcast_join_task+0x1b1] RIP: ffffffffc0944ac1 RSP: ff646f199a8c7e00 RFLAGS: 00000002 RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: ff1c6a1a04dc82f8 RCX: 0000000000000000 work (&priv->mcast_task{,.work}) RDX: ff1c6a192d60ac68 RSI: 0000000000000286 RDI: ff1c6a1a04dc8000 &mcast->list RBP: ff646f199a8c7e90 R8: ff1c699980019420 R9: ff1c6a1920c9a000 R10: ff646f199a8c7e00 R11: ff1c6a191a7d9800 R12: ff1c6a192d60ac00 mcast R13: ff1c6a1d82200000 R14: ff1c6a1a04dc8000 R15: ff1c6a1a04dc82d8 dev priv (&priv->lock) &priv->multicast_list (aka head) ORIG_RAX: ffffffffffffffff CS: 0010 SS: 0018 --- --- #5 [ff646f199a8c7e00] ipoib_mcast_join_task+0x1b1 at ffffffffc0944ac1 [ib_ipoib] #6 [ff646f199a8c7e98] process_one_work+0x1a7 at ffffffff9bf10967 crash> rx ff646f199a8c7e68 ff646f199a8c7e68: ff1c6a1a04dc82f8 <<< work = &priv->mcast_task.work crash> list -hO ipoib_dev_priv.multicast_list ff1c6a1a04dc8000 (empty) crash> ipoib_dev_priv.mcast_task.work.func,mcast_mutex.owner.counter ff1c6a1a04dc8000 mcast_task.work.func = 0xffffffffc0944910 , mcast_mutex.owner.counter = 0xff1c69998efec000 crash> b 8 PID: 8 TASK: ff1c69998efec000 CPU: 33 COMMAND: "kworker/u72:0" -- #3 [ff646f1980153d50] wait_for_completion+0x96 at ffffffff9c7d7646 #4 [ff646f1980153d90] ipoib_mcast_remove_list+0x56 at ffffffffc0944dc6 [ib_ipoib] #5 [ff646f1980153de8] ipoib_mcast_dev_flush+0x1a7 at ffffffffc09455a7 [ib_ipoib] #6 [ff646f1980153e58] __ipoib_ib_dev_flush+0x1a4 at ffffffffc09431a4 [ib_ipoib] #7 [ff ---truncated---

CVE 信息

相关弱点

CWE-ID 弱点名称 来源
CWE-667 Improper Locking
The product does not properly acquire or release a lock on a resource, leading to unexpected resource state changes and behaviors.

指标

指标 评分 严重程度 CVSS 向量 来源
V3.1 5.5 MEDIUM CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/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.

None

There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.

Integrity Impact

This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information.

None

There is no loss of integrity within 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.

 nvd@nist.gov

EPSS

EPSS 是一种预测漏洞被利用可能性的评分模型。

EPSS 评分

EPSS 模型生成一个介于 0 到 1（即 0% 到 100%）之间的概率评分。评分越高，漏洞被利用的可能性越大。

EPSS 百分位

百分位用于根据 EPSS 评分对 CVE 进行排名。例如，EPSS 百分位为第 95 的 CVE，其被利用的可能性高于 95% 的其他 CVE。因此，百分位可用于比较不同 CVE 的 EPSS 评分。
EPSS First.org

相关产品

配置 0

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 至（不含） 4.19.307

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 从（含） 4.20 至（不含） 5.4.269

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 从（含） 5.5 至（不含） 5.10.210

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 从（含） 5.11 至（不含） 5.15.149

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 从（含） 5.16 至（不含） 6.1.77

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 从（含） 6.2 至（不含） 6.6.16

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 从（含） 6.7 至（不含） 6.7.4

参考资料

cvefind.com 上展示的信息来源于多个精心选择的权威数据源。CVE 数据由 MITRE Corporation 和 National Vulnerability Database (NVD) 提供。已知被利用漏洞（KEV）目录来源于 Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA)，EPSS 评分来自 FIRST.org。此外，软件弱点（CWE）和常见攻击模式（CAPEC）数据由 MITRE Corporation 维护，硬件和软件配置（CPE）信息由 NVD 提供。