CVE-2023-52751

Public on

Last Modified: UTC

Moderate Moderate Impact What does this mean?
7.1 CVSS v3 Base Score

Description

The MITRE CVE dictionary describes this issue as

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: smb: client: fix use-after-free in smb2_query_info_compound() The following UAF was triggered when running fstests generic/072 with KASAN enabled against Windows Server 2022 and mount options 'multichannel,max_channels=2,vers=3.1.1,mfsymlinks,noperm' BUG: KASAN: slab-use-after-free in smb2_query_info_compound+0x423/0x6d0 [cifs] Read of size 8 at addr ffff888014941048 by task xfs_io/27534 CPU: 0 PID: 27534 Comm: xfs_io Not tainted 6.6.0-rc7 #1 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS rel-1.16.2-3-gd478f380-rebuilt.opensuse.org 04/01/2014 Call Trace: dump_stack_lvl+0x4a/0x80 print_report+0xcf/0x650 ? srso_alias_return_thunk+0x5/0x7f ? srso_alias_return_thunk+0x5/0x7f ? __phys_addr+0x46/0x90 kasan_report+0xda/0x110 ? smb2_query_info_compound+0x423/0x6d0 [cifs] ? smb2_query_info_compound+0x423/0x6d0 [cifs] smb2_query_info_compound+0x423/0x6d0 [cifs] ? __pfx_smb2_query_info_compound+0x10/0x10 [cifs] ? srso_alias_return_thunk+0x5/0x7f ? __stack_depot_save+0x39/0x480 ? kasan_save_stack+0x33/0x60 ? kasan_set_track+0x25/0x30 ? ____kasan_slab_free+0x126/0x170 smb2_queryfs+0xc2/0x2c0 [cifs] ? __pfx_smb2_queryfs+0x10/0x10 [cifs] ? __pfx___lock_acquire+0x10/0x10 smb311_queryfs+0x210/0x220 [cifs] ? __pfx_smb311_queryfs+0x10/0x10 [cifs] ? srso_alias_return_thunk+0x5/0x7f ? __lock_acquire+0x480/0x26c0 ? lock_release+0x1ed/0x640 ? srso_alias_return_thunk+0x5/0x7f ? do_raw_spin_unlock+0x9b/0x100 cifs_statfs+0x18c/0x4b0 [cifs] statfs_by_dentry+0x9b/0xf0 fd_statfs+0x4e/0xb0 __do_sys_fstatfs+0x7f/0xe0 ? __pfx___do_sys_fstatfs+0x10/0x10 ? srso_alias_return_thunk+0x5/0x7f ? lockdep_hardirqs_on_prepare+0x136/0x200 ? srso_alias_return_thunk+0x5/0x7f do_syscall_64+0x3f/0x90 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x6e/0xd8 Allocated by task 27534: kasan_save_stack+0x33/0x60 kasan_set_track+0x25/0x30 __kasan_kmalloc+0x8f/0xa0 open_cached_dir+0x71b/0x1240 [cifs] smb2_query_info_compound+0x5c3/0x6d0 [cifs] smb2_queryfs+0xc2/0x2c0 [cifs] smb311_queryfs+0x210/0x220 [cifs] cifs_statfs+0x18c/0x4b0 [cifs] statfs_by_dentry+0x9b/0xf0 fd_statfs+0x4e/0xb0 __do_sys_fstatfs+0x7f/0xe0 do_syscall_64+0x3f/0x90 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x6e/0xd8 Freed by task 27534: kasan_save_stack+0x33/0x60 kasan_set_track+0x25/0x30 kasan_save_free_info+0x2b/0x50 ____kasan_slab_free+0x126/0x170 slab_free_freelist_hook+0xd0/0x1e0 __kmem_cache_free+0x9d/0x1b0 open_cached_dir+0xff5/0x1240 [cifs] smb2_query_info_compound+0x5c3/0x6d0 [cifs] smb2_queryfs+0xc2/0x2c0 [cifs] This is a race between open_cached_dir() and cached_dir_lease_break() where the cache entry for the open directory handle receives a lease break while creating it. And before returning from open_cached_dir(), we put the last reference of the new @cfid because of !@cfid->has_lease. Besides the UAF, while running xfstests a lot of missed lease breaks have been noticed in tests that run several concurrent statfs(2) calls on those cached fids CIFS: VFS: \\w22-root1.gandalf.test No task to wake, unknown frame... CIFS: VFS: \\w22-root1.gandalf.test Cmd: 18 Err: 0x0 Flags: 0x1... CIFS: VFS: \\w22-root1.gandalf.test smb buf 00000000715bfe83 len 108 CIFS: VFS: Dump pending requests: CIFS: VFS: \\w22-root1.gandalf.test No task to wake, unknown frame... CIFS: VFS: \\w22-root1.gandalf.test Cmd: 18 Err: 0x0 Flags: 0x1... CIFS: VFS: \\w22-root1.gandalf.test smb buf 000000005aa7316e len 108 ... To fix both, in open_cached_dir() ensure that @cfid->has_lease is set right before sending out compounded request so that any potential lease break will be get processed by demultiplex thread while we're still caching @cfid. And, if open failed for some reason, re-check @cfid->has_lease to decide whether or not put lease reference.

Additional Information

External References

Content from www.cve.org is not included.https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-52751

Content from nvd.nist.gov is not included.https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-52751

Content from lore.kernel.org is not included.https://lore.kernel.org/linux-cve-announce/2024052144-CVE-2023-52751-69df@gregkh/T

Affected Packages and Issued Red Hat Security Errata

Products / Services Components State Errata
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 kernel Not affected
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 kernel Not affected
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 kernel-rt Not affected
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 kernel Not affected
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 kernel-rt Not affected
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 kernel-rt Affected
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 kernel Fixed This content is not included.RHSA-2024:9315
Unless explicitly stated as not affected, all previous versions of packages in any minor update stream of a product listed here should be assumed vulnerable, although may not have been subject to full analysis.

Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) Score Details

Important note

CVSS scores for open source components depend on vendor-specific factors (e.g. version or build chain). Therefore, Red Hat's score and impact rating can be different from NVD and other vendors. Red Hat remains the authoritative CVE Naming Authorities (CNA) source for its products and services (see Red Hat classifications ).

CVSS v3 Score Breakdown Red Hat NVD
CVSS v3 Base Score 7.1 7.8
Attack Vector Local Local
Attack Complexity Low Low
Privileges Required Low Low
User Interaction None None
Scope Unchanged Unchanged
Confidentiality Impact High High
Integrity Impact None High
Availability Impact High High

CVSS v3 Vector

Red Hat CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:H

NVD CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

Frequently Asked Questions

Why is Red Hat's CVSS v3 score or Impact different from other vendors?

 For open source software shipped by multiple vendors, the CVSS base scores may vary for each vendor's version depending on the version they ship, how they ship it, the platform, and even how the software is compiled. This makes scoring of vulnerabilities difficult for third-party vulnerability databases such as NVD that only provide a single CVSS base score for each vulnerability. Red Hat scores reflect how a vulnerability affects our products specifically.

For more information, see https://access.redhat.com/solutions/762393.

My product is listed as "Under investigation" or "Affected", when will Red Hat release a fix for this vulnerability?
  • "Under investigation" doesn't necessarily mean that the product is affected by this vulnerability. It only means that our Analysis Team is still working on determining whether the product is affected and how it is affected.
  • "Affected" means that our Analysis Team has determined that this product is affected by this vulnerability and might release a fix to address this in the near future.

What can I do if my product is listed as "Will not fix"?

 A "will not fix" status means that a fix for an affected product version is not planned or not possible due to complexity, which may create additional risk.

Available options depend mostly on the Impact of the vulnerability and the current Life Cycle phase of your product. Overall, you have the following options:
  • Upgrade to a supported product version that includes a fix for this vulnerability (recommended).
  • Apply a mitigation (if one exists).
  • Open a This content is not included.support case to request a prioritization of releasing a fix for this vulnerability.

What can I do if my product is listed as "Fix deferred"?

 A deferred status means that a fix for an affected product version is not guaranteed due to higher-priority development work.

Available options depend mostly on the Impact of the vulnerability and the current Life Cycle phase of your product. Overall, you have the following options:
  • Apply a mitigation (if one exists).
  • Open a This content is not included.support case to request a prioritization of releasing a fix for this vulnerability.
  • Red Hat Engineering focuses on addressing high-priority issues based on their complexity or limited lifecycle support. Therefore, lower-priority issues will not receive immediate fixes.

What is a mitigation?

 A mitigation is an action that can be taken to reduce the impact of a security vulnerability, without deploying any fixes.

I have a Red Hat product but it is not in the above list, is it affected?

 The listed products were found to include one or more of the components that this vulnerability affects. These products underwent a thorough evaluation to determine their affectedness by this vulnerability. Note that layered products (such as container-based offerings) that consume affected components from any of the products listed in this table may be affected and are not represented.

Why is my security scanner reporting my product as vulnerable to this vulnerability even though my product version is fixed or not affected?

 In order to maintain code stability and compatibility, Red Hat usually does not rebase packages to entirely new versions. Instead, we backport fixes and new features to an older version of the package we distribute. This can result in some security scanners that only consider the package version to report the package as vulnerable. To avoid this, we suggest that you use an approved vulnerability scanner from our This content is not included.Red Hat Vulnerability Scanner Certification program.