In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
mptcp: fix disconnect vs accept race
Despite commit 0ad529d9fd2b ("mptcp: fix possible divide by zero in
recvmsg()"), the mptcp protocol is still prone to a race between
disconnect() (or shutdown) and accept.
The root cause is that the mentioned commit checks the msk-level
flag, but mptcp_stream_accept() does acquire the msk-level lock,
as it can rely directly on the first subflow lock.
As reported by Christoph than can lead to a race where an msk
socket is accepted after that mptcp_subflow_queue_clean() releases
the listener socket lock and just before it takes destructive
actions leading to the following splat:
BUG: kernel NULL pointer dereference, address: 0000000000000012
PGD 5a4ca067 P4D 5a4ca067 PUD 37d4c067 PMD 0
Oops: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP
CPU: 2 PID: 10955 Comm: syz-executor.5 Not tainted 6.5.0-rc1-gdc7b257ee5dd #37
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.11.0-2.el7 04/01/2014
RIP: 0010:mptcp_stream_accept+0x1ee/0x2f0 include/net/inet_sock.h:330
Code: 0a 09 00 48 8b 1b 4c 39 e3 74 07 e8 bc 7c 7f fe eb a1 e8 b5 7c 7f fe 4c 8b 6c 24 08 eb 05 e8 a9 7c 7f fe 49 8b 85 d8 09 00 00 <0f> b6 40 12 88 44 24 07 0f b6 6c 24 07 bf 07 00 00 00 89 ee e8 89
RSP: 0018:ffffc90000d07dc0 EFLAGS: 00010293
RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: ffff888037e8d020 RCX: ffff88803b093300
RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: ffffffff833822c5 RDI: ffffffff8333896a
RBP: 0000607f82031520 R08: ffff88803b093300 R09: 0000000000000000
R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000003e83 R12: ffff888037e8d020
R13: ffff888037e8c680 R14: ffff888009af7900 R15: ffff888009af6880
FS: 00007fc26d708640(0000) GS:ffff88807dd00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
CR2: 0000000000000012 CR3: 0000000066bc5001 CR4: 0000000000370ee0
DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
Call Trace:
do_accept+0x1ae/0x260 net/socket.c:1872
__sys_accept4+0x9b/0x110 net/socket.c:1913
__do_sys_accept4 net/socket.c:1954 [inline]
__se_sys_accept4 net/socket.c:1951 [inline]
__x64_sys_accept4+0x20/0x30 net/socket.c:1951
do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:50 [inline]
do_syscall_64+0x47/0xa0 arch/x86/entry/common.c:80
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x6e/0xd8
Address the issue by temporary removing the pending request socket
from the accept queue, so that racing accept() can't touch them.
After depleting the msk - the ssk still exists, as plain TCP sockets,
re-insert them into the accept queue, so that later inet_csk_listen_stop()
will complete the tcp socket disposal.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (4.7): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 4.7 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 4.7 MEDIUMCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.1% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS. FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
- Confirmed exploitation
- None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
- EG Priority
- SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from Vulnrichment. EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table
BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). Where an input reads “CISA's BOD 26-04 default”, no one has published it for this CVE, and CISA's implementation guidance says: “If “Automatable” and “Technical Impact” information items about a CVE ID are not available and the CVE ID is not in the KEV Catalog, CISA will treat its values as “no” and “total,” respectively, until CISA or a third party provides metadata about the CVE ID. CISA will always provide the Vulnrichment data for a CVE ID listed in the KEV Catalog.” Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it