CVE-2021-47371 : Detail

CVE-2021-47371

7.1
/
High
0.04%V4
Local
2024-05-21
15h03 +00:00
2024-12-19
07h40 +00:00
CVE.org
NVD
Notifications for a CVE
Stay informed of any changes for a specific CVE.
Notifications manage

CVE Descriptions

nexthop: Fix memory leaks in nexthop notification chain listeners

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: nexthop: Fix memory leaks in nexthop notification chain listeners syzkaller discovered memory leaks [1] that can be reduced to the following commands: # ip nexthop add id 1 blackhole # devlink dev reload pci/0000:06:00.0 As part of the reload flow, mlxsw will unregister its netdevs and then unregister from the nexthop notification chain. Before unregistering from the notification chain, mlxsw will receive delete notifications for nexthop objects using netdevs registered by mlxsw or their uppers. mlxsw will not receive notifications for nexthops using netdevs that are not dismantled as part of the reload flow. For example, the blackhole nexthop above that internally uses the loopback netdev as its nexthop device. One way to fix this problem is to have listeners flush their nexthop tables after unregistering from the notification chain. This is error-prone as evident by this patch and also not symmetric with the registration path where a listener receives a dump of all the existing nexthops. Therefore, fix this problem by replaying delete notifications for the listener being unregistered. This is symmetric to the registration path and also consistent with the netdev notification chain. The above means that unregister_nexthop_notifier(), like register_nexthop_notifier(), will have to take RTNL in order to iterate over the existing nexthops and that any callers of the function cannot hold RTNL. This is true for mlxsw and netdevsim, but not for the VXLAN driver. To avoid a deadlock, change the latter to unregister its nexthop listener without holding RTNL, making it symmetric to the registration path. [1] unreferenced object 0xffff88806173d600 (size 512): comm "syz-executor.0", pid 1290, jiffies 4295583142 (age 143.507s) hex dump (first 32 bytes): 41 9d 1e 60 80 88 ff ff 08 d6 73 61 80 88 ff ff A..`......sa.... 08 d6 73 61 80 88 ff ff 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ..sa............ backtrace: [] kmemleak_alloc_recursive include/linux/kmemleak.h:43 [inline] [] slab_post_alloc_hook+0x96/0x490 mm/slab.h:522 [] slab_alloc_node mm/slub.c:3206 [inline] [] slab_alloc mm/slub.c:3214 [inline] [] kmem_cache_alloc_trace+0x163/0x370 mm/slub.c:3231 [] kmalloc include/linux/slab.h:591 [inline] [] kzalloc include/linux/slab.h:721 [inline] [] mlxsw_sp_nexthop_obj_group_create drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlxsw/spectrum_router.c:4918 [inline] [] mlxsw_sp_nexthop_obj_new drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlxsw/spectrum_router.c:5054 [inline] [] mlxsw_sp_nexthop_obj_event+0x59a/0x2910 drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlxsw/spectrum_router.c:5239 [] notifier_call_chain+0xbd/0x210 kernel/notifier.c:83 [] blocking_notifier_call_chain kernel/notifier.c:318 [inline] [] blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x72/0xa0 kernel/notifier.c:306 [] call_nexthop_notifiers+0x156/0x310 net/ipv4/nexthop.c:244 [] insert_nexthop net/ipv4/nexthop.c:2336 [inline] [] nexthop_add net/ipv4/nexthop.c:2644 [inline] [] rtm_new_nexthop+0x14e8/0x4d10 net/ipv4/nexthop.c:2913 [] rtnetlink_rcv_msg+0x448/0xbf0 net/core/rtnetlink.c:5572 [] netlink_rcv_skb+0x173/0x480 net/netlink/af_netlink.c:2504 [] rtnetlink_rcv+0x22/0x30 net/core/rtnetlink.c:5590 [] netlink_unicast_kernel net/netlink/af_netlink.c:1314 [inline] [] netlink_unicast+0x5ae/0x7f0 net/netlink/af_netlink.c:1340 [] netlink_sendmsg+0x8e1/0xe30 net/netlink/af_netlink.c:1929 [] sock_sendmsg_nosec net/socket.c:704 [inline ---truncated---

CVE Informations

Related Weaknesses

CWE-ID Weakness Name Source
CWE-400 Uncontrolled Resource Consumption
The product does not properly control the allocation and maintenance of a limited resource.

Metrics

Metrics Score Severity CVSS Vector Source
V3.1 7.1 HIGH CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/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.

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.

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.

 134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0

EPSS

EPSS is a scoring model that predicts the likelihood of a vulnerability being exploited.

EPSS Score

The EPSS model produces a probability score between 0 and 1 (0 and 100%). The higher the score, the greater the probability that a vulnerability will be exploited.

EPSS Percentile

The percentile is used to rank CVE according to their EPSS score. For example, a CVE in the 95th percentile according to its EPSS score is more likely to be exploited than 95% of other CVE. Thus, the percentile is used to compare the EPSS score of a CVE with that of other CVE.
EPSS First.org

Products Mentioned

Configuraton 0

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.11 To (excluding) 5.14.9

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 5.15

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 5.15

References

The information presented on CVE Find originates from several carefully selected reference sources. CVE data is provided by MITRE Corporation and the National Vulnerability Database (NVD). The Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog is sourced from the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), while EPSS scores come from FIRST.org. Additionally, data regarding software weaknesses (CWE) and common attack patterns (CAPEC) is maintained by MITRE Corporation, and information on hardware and software configurations (CPE) is provided by the NVD.