lru.next, which can change more often than page->index. Low order bit should never be set for lru.next (when used as an anchor in LRU list), so KCSAN report is mostly a false positive. Backporting to older kernel versions seems not necessary. [1] BUG: KCSAN: data-race in lru_add_fn / tcp_build_frag write to 0xffffea0004a1d2c8 of 8 bytes by task 18600 on cpu 0: __list_add include/linux/list.h:73 [inline] list_add include/linux/list.h:88 [inline] lruvec_add_folio include/linux/mm_inline.h:105 [inline] lru_add_fn+0x440/0x520 mm/swap.c:228 folio_batch_move_lru+0x1e1/0x2a0 mm/swap.c:246 folio_batch_add_and_move mm/swap.c:263 [inline] folio_add_lru+0xf1/0x140 mm/swap.c:490 filemap_add_folio+0xf8/0x150 mm/filemap.c:948 __filemap_get_folio+0x510/0x6d0 mm/filemap.c:1981 pagecache_get_page+0x26/0x190 mm/folio-compat.c:104 grab_cache_page_write_begin+0x2a/0x30 mm/folio-compat.c:116 ext4_da_write_begin+0x2dd/0x5f0 fs/ext4/inode.c:2988 generic_perform_write+0x1d4/0x3f0 mm/filemap.c:3738 ext4_buffered_write_iter+0x235/0x3e0 fs/ext4/file.c:270 ext4_file_write_iter+0x2e3/0x1210 call_write_iter include/linux/fs.h:2187 [inline] new_sync_write fs/read_write.c:491 [inline] vfs_write+0x468/0x760 fs/read_write.c:578 ksys_write+0xe8/0x1a0 fs/read_write.c:631 __do_sys_write fs/read_write.c:643 [inline] __se_sys_write fs/read_write.c:640 [inline] __x64_sys_write+0x3e/0x50 fs/read_write.c:640 do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:50 [inline] do_syscall_64+0x2b/0x70 arch/x86/entry/common.c:80 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd read to 0xffffea0004a1d2c8 of 8 bytes by task 18611 on cpu 1: page_is_pfmemalloc include/linux/mm.h:1740 [inline] __skb_fill_page_desc include/linux/skbuff.h:2422 [inline] skb_fill_page_desc include/linux/skbuff.h:2443 [inline] tcp_build_frag+0x613/0xb20 net/ipv4/tcp.c:1018 do_tcp_sendpages+0x3e8/0xaf0 net/ipv4/tcp.c:1075 tcp_sendpage_locked net/ipv4/tcp.c:1140 [inline] tcp_sendpage+0x89/0xb0 net/ipv4/tcp.c:1150 inet_sendpage+0x7f/0xc0 net/ipv4/af_inet.c:833 kernel_sendpage+0x184/0x300 net/socket.c:3561 sock_sendpage+0x5a/0x70 net/socket.c:1054 pipe_to_sendpage+0x128/0x160 fs/splice.c:361 splice_from_pipe_feed fs/splice.c:415 [inline] __splice_from_pipe+0x222/0x4d0 fs/splice.c:559 splice_from_pipe fs/splice.c:594 [inline] generic_splice_sendpage+0x89/0xc0 fs/splice.c:743 do_splice_from fs/splice.c:764 [inline] direct_splice_actor+0x80/0xa0 fs/splice.c:931 splice_direct_to_actor+0x305/0x620 fs/splice.c:886 do_splice_direct+0xfb/0x180 fs/splice.c:974 do_sendfile+0x3bf/0x910 fs/read_write.c:1249 __do_sys_sendfile64 fs/read_write.c:1317 [inline] __se_sys_sendfile64 fs/read_write.c:1303 [inline] __x64_sys_sendfile64+0x10c/0x150 fs/read_write.c:1303 do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:50 [inline] do_syscall_64+0x2b/0x70 arch/x86/entry/common.c:80 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd value changed: 0x0000000000000000 -> 0xffffea0004a1d288 Reported by Kernel Concurrency Sanitizer on: CPU: 1 PID: 18611 Comm: syz-executor.4 Not tainted 6.0.0-rc2-syzkaller-00248-ge022620b5d05-dirty #0 Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS Google 07/22/2022">

CVE-2022-48689 : Detail

CVE-2022-48689

7
/
High
0.04%V3
Local
2024-05-03
15h00 +00:00
2024-12-19
08h05 +00:00
CVE.org
NVD
Notifications for a CVE
Stay informed of any changes for a specific CVE.
Notifications manage

CVE Descriptions

tcp: TX zerocopy should not sense pfmemalloc status

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: tcp: TX zerocopy should not sense pfmemalloc status We got a recent syzbot report [1] showing a possible misuse of pfmemalloc page status in TCP zerocopy paths. Indeed, for pages coming from user space or other layers, using page_is_pfmemalloc() is moot, and possibly could give false positives. There has been attempts to make page_is_pfmemalloc() more robust, but not using it in the first place in this context is probably better, removing cpu cycles. Note to stable teams : You need to backport 84ce071e38a6 ("net: introduce __skb_fill_page_desc_noacc") as a prereq. Race is more probable after commit c07aea3ef4d4 ("mm: add a signature in struct page") because page_is_pfmemalloc() is now using low order bit from page->lru.next, which can change more often than page->index. Low order bit should never be set for lru.next (when used as an anchor in LRU list), so KCSAN report is mostly a false positive. Backporting to older kernel versions seems not necessary. [1] BUG: KCSAN: data-race in lru_add_fn / tcp_build_frag write to 0xffffea0004a1d2c8 of 8 bytes by task 18600 on cpu 0: __list_add include/linux/list.h:73 [inline] list_add include/linux/list.h:88 [inline] lruvec_add_folio include/linux/mm_inline.h:105 [inline] lru_add_fn+0x440/0x520 mm/swap.c:228 folio_batch_move_lru+0x1e1/0x2a0 mm/swap.c:246 folio_batch_add_and_move mm/swap.c:263 [inline] folio_add_lru+0xf1/0x140 mm/swap.c:490 filemap_add_folio+0xf8/0x150 mm/filemap.c:948 __filemap_get_folio+0x510/0x6d0 mm/filemap.c:1981 pagecache_get_page+0x26/0x190 mm/folio-compat.c:104 grab_cache_page_write_begin+0x2a/0x30 mm/folio-compat.c:116 ext4_da_write_begin+0x2dd/0x5f0 fs/ext4/inode.c:2988 generic_perform_write+0x1d4/0x3f0 mm/filemap.c:3738 ext4_buffered_write_iter+0x235/0x3e0 fs/ext4/file.c:270 ext4_file_write_iter+0x2e3/0x1210 call_write_iter include/linux/fs.h:2187 [inline] new_sync_write fs/read_write.c:491 [inline] vfs_write+0x468/0x760 fs/read_write.c:578 ksys_write+0xe8/0x1a0 fs/read_write.c:631 __do_sys_write fs/read_write.c:643 [inline] __se_sys_write fs/read_write.c:640 [inline] __x64_sys_write+0x3e/0x50 fs/read_write.c:640 do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:50 [inline] do_syscall_64+0x2b/0x70 arch/x86/entry/common.c:80 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd read to 0xffffea0004a1d2c8 of 8 bytes by task 18611 on cpu 1: page_is_pfmemalloc include/linux/mm.h:1740 [inline] __skb_fill_page_desc include/linux/skbuff.h:2422 [inline] skb_fill_page_desc include/linux/skbuff.h:2443 [inline] tcp_build_frag+0x613/0xb20 net/ipv4/tcp.c:1018 do_tcp_sendpages+0x3e8/0xaf0 net/ipv4/tcp.c:1075 tcp_sendpage_locked net/ipv4/tcp.c:1140 [inline] tcp_sendpage+0x89/0xb0 net/ipv4/tcp.c:1150 inet_sendpage+0x7f/0xc0 net/ipv4/af_inet.c:833 kernel_sendpage+0x184/0x300 net/socket.c:3561 sock_sendpage+0x5a/0x70 net/socket.c:1054 pipe_to_sendpage+0x128/0x160 fs/splice.c:361 splice_from_pipe_feed fs/splice.c:415 [inline] __splice_from_pipe+0x222/0x4d0 fs/splice.c:559 splice_from_pipe fs/splice.c:594 [inline] generic_splice_sendpage+0x89/0xc0 fs/splice.c:743 do_splice_from fs/splice.c:764 [inline] direct_splice_actor+0x80/0xa0 fs/splice.c:931 splice_direct_to_actor+0x305/0x620 fs/splice.c:886 do_splice_direct+0xfb/0x180 fs/splice.c:974 do_sendfile+0x3bf/0x910 fs/read_write.c:1249 __do_sys_sendfile64 fs/read_write.c:1317 [inline] __se_sys_sendfile64 fs/read_write.c:1303 [inline] __x64_sys_sendfile64+0x10c/0x150 fs/read_write.c:1303 do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:50 [inline] do_syscall_64+0x2b/0x70 arch/x86/entry/common.c:80 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd value changed: 0x0000000000000000 -> 0xffffea0004a1d288 Reported by Kernel Concurrency Sanitizer on: CPU: 1 PID: 18611 Comm: syz-executor.4 Not tainted 6.0.0-rc2-syzkaller-00248-ge022620b5d05-dirty #0 Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS Google 07/22/2022

CVE Informations

Related Weaknesses

CWE-ID Weakness Name Source
CWE-362 Concurrent Execution using Shared Resource with Improper Synchronization ('Race Condition')
The product contains a concurrent code sequence that requires temporary, exclusive access to a shared resource, but a timing window exists in which the shared resource can be modified by another code sequence operating concurrently.

Metrics

Metrics Score Severity CVSS Vector Source
V3.1 7 HIGH CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/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.

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.

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.

 [email protected]
V3.1 5.3 MEDIUM CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L

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.

Low

There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to 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.

Low

Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on the impacted component.

Availability Impact

This metric measures the impact to the availability of the impacted component resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability.

Low

Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

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) 5.14 To (excluding) 5.15.68

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.16 To (excluding) 5.19.9

References