In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ksmbd: only rebind the reopened file's own oplock on durable reconnect
ksmbd_reopen_durable_fd() walks the inode's m_op_list and rebinds every
detached oplock to the reconnecting session:
list_for_each_entry_rcu(op, &ci->m_op_list, op_entry,
lockdep_is_held(&ci->m_lock)) {
if (op->conn)
continue;
op->conn = ksmbd_conn_get(fp->conn);
op->sess = work->sess;
}
The only key is op->conn == NULL, which every detached durable handle on
that inode matches, not just the one owned by fp. When two sessions hold
durable handles on the same file and both disconnect, reconnecting one of
them adopts the other session's oplock: op->sess is overwritten with the
reconnecting session without taking a reference on it, while op->conn
pins the connection.
The sibling teardown path, session_fd_check(), keys on the identity of
the connection being torn down (op->conn == conn) rather than on shared
state, and so does not have this problem.
Once the adopting session is destroyed, ksmbd_session_destroy() frees it
while the foreign oplock still points at it. The reader in
ksmbd_close_fd_app_instance_id() validates only opinfo->conn, which is
still live thanks to the reference taken above, and then dereferences the
stale session:
if (!opinfo->conn) {
up_read(&fp->f_ci->m_lock);
goto out;
}
ft = &opinfo->sess->file_table;
write_lock(&ft->lock);
BUG: KASAN: slab-use-after-free in _raw_write_lock+0x74/0xd0
Write of size 4 at addr ffff88810a970528 by task kworker/0:0/9
Workqueue: ksmbd-io handle_ksmbd_work
Call Trace:
_raw_write_lock+0x74/0xd0
ksmbd_close_fd_app_instance_id+0x183/0x410
smb2_open+0x1346/0x4430
handle_ksmbd_work+0x2bb/0x7b0
Reached from an authenticated session against a share with the default
durable-handle and oplock configuration: two sessions open the same file
with a durable-v2 handle and an RH lease under distinct AppInstanceIds,
both log off, one reconnects with DH2C, and a later durable-v2 create
carrying the other AppInstanceId walks into the freed session.
Constrain the loop to the oplock owned by the file being reopened.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
No fix is confirmed yet. Restrict network exposure of the affected system or apply the vendor's mitigation within your standard update timelines, and watch the vendor's advisory for the fix.
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