CVE-2022-48628
Description
From CVE.org
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ceph: drop messages from MDS when unmounting When unmounting all the dirty buffers will be flushed and after the last osd request is finished the last reference of the i_count will be released. Then it will flush the dirty cap/snap to MDSs, and the unmounting won't wait the possible acks, which will ihold the inodes when updating the metadata locally but makes no sense any more, of this. This will make the evict_inodes() to skip these inodes. If encrypt is enabled the kernel generate a warning when removing the encrypt keys when the skipped inodes still hold the keyring: WARNING: CPU: 4 PID: 168846 at fs/crypto/keyring.c:242 fscrypt_destroy_keyring+0x7e/0xd0 CPU: 4 PID: 168846 Comm: umount Tainted: G S 6.1.0-rc5-ceph-g72ead199864c #1 Hardware name: Supermicro SYS-5018R-WR/X10SRW-F, BIOS 2.0 12/17/2015 RIP: 0010:fscrypt_destroy_keyring+0x7e/0xd0 RSP: 0018:ffffc9000b277e28 EFLAGS: 00010202 RAX: 0000000000000002 RBX: ffff88810d52ac00 RCX: ffff88810b56aa00 RDX: 0000000080000000 RSI: ffffffff822f3a09 RDI: ffff888108f59000 RBP: ffff8881d394fb88 R08: 0000000000000028 R09: 0000000000000000 R10: 0000000000000001 R11: 11ff4fe6834fcd91 R12: ffff8881d394fc40 R13: ffff888108f59000 R14: ffff8881d394f800 R15: 0000000000000000 FS: 00007fd83f6f1080(0000) GS:ffff88885fd00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 CR2: 00007f918d417000 CR3: 000000017f89a005 CR4: 00000000003706e0 DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000 DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400 Call Trace: <TASK> generic_shutdown_super+0x47/0x120 kill_anon_super+0x14/0x30 ceph_kill_sb+0x36/0x90 [ceph] deactivate_locked_super+0x29/0x60 cleanup_mnt+0xb8/0x140 task_work_run+0x67/0xb0 exit_to_user_mode_prepare+0x23d/0x240 syscall_exit_to_user_mode+0x25/0x60 do_syscall_64+0x40/0x80 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd RIP: 0033:0x7fd83dc39e9b Later the kernel will crash when iput() the inodes and dereferencing the "sb->s_master_keys", which has been released by the generic_shutdown_super().
Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) Score Details
Info alert: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 Authority (CNA) source for its products and services (see Red Hat classifications).
The following CVSS metrics and score provided are preliminary and subject to review.
CVSS v3 Score Breakdown
| Red Hat | NVD | cve.org | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Base Score | 4.4 | 5.5 | N/A |
| Attack Vector | Local | Local | N/A |
| Attack Complexity | Low | Low | N/A |
| Privileges Required | Low | Low | N/A |
| User Interaction | None | None | N/A |
| Scope | Unchanged | Unchanged | N/A |
| Confidentiality | Low | None | N/A |
| Integrity Impact | None | None | N/A |
| Availability Impact | Low | High | N/A |
Vector
Red Hat: CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:L
NVD: CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Understanding the Weakness (CWE)
Confidentiality
Technical Impact: Read Application Data
If the application does not use a secure channel, such as SSL, to exchange sensitive information, it is possible for an attacker with access to the network traffic to sniff packets from the connection and uncover the data. This attack is not technically difficult, but does require physical access to some portion of the network over which the sensitive data travels. This access is usually somewhere near where the user is connected to the network (such as a colleague on the company network) but can be anywhere along the path from the user to the end server.
Confidentiality,Integrity
Technical Impact: Modify Application Data
Omitting the use of encryption in any program which transfers data over a network of any kind should be considered on par with delivering the data sent to each user on the local networks of both the sender and receiver. Worse, this omission allows for the injection of data into a stream of communication between two parties -- with no means for the victims to separate valid data from invalid. In this day of widespread network attacks and password collection sniffers, it is an unnecessary risk to omit encryption from the design of any system which might benefit from it.
Frequently Asked Questions
Not sure what something means? Check out our Security Glossary.
Want to get errata notifications? Sign up here.
