fkie_cve-2025-23145
Vulnerability from fkie_nvd
Published
2025-05-01 13:15
Modified
2025-05-02 13:53
Severity ?
Summary
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
mptcp: fix NULL pointer in can_accept_new_subflow
When testing valkey benchmark tool with MPTCP, the kernel panics in
'mptcp_can_accept_new_subflow' because subflow_req->msk is NULL.
Call trace:
mptcp_can_accept_new_subflow (./net/mptcp/subflow.c:63 (discriminator 4)) (P)
subflow_syn_recv_sock (./net/mptcp/subflow.c:854)
tcp_check_req (./net/ipv4/tcp_minisocks.c:863)
tcp_v4_rcv (./net/ipv4/tcp_ipv4.c:2268)
ip_protocol_deliver_rcu (./net/ipv4/ip_input.c:207)
ip_local_deliver_finish (./net/ipv4/ip_input.c:234)
ip_local_deliver (./net/ipv4/ip_input.c:254)
ip_rcv_finish (./net/ipv4/ip_input.c:449)
...
According to the debug log, the same req received two SYN-ACK in a very
short time, very likely because the client retransmits the syn ack due
to multiple reasons.
Even if the packets are transmitted with a relevant time interval, they
can be processed by the server on different CPUs concurrently). The
'subflow_req->msk' ownership is transferred to the subflow the first,
and there will be a risk of a null pointer dereference here.
This patch fixes this issue by moving the 'subflow_req->msk' under the
`own_req == true` conditional.
Note that the !msk check in subflow_hmac_valid() can be dropped, because
the same check already exists under the own_req mpj branch where the
code has been moved to.
References
Impacted products
Vendor | Product | Version |
---|
{ "cveTags": [], "descriptions": [ { "lang": "en", "value": "In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:\n\nmptcp: fix NULL pointer in can_accept_new_subflow\n\nWhen testing valkey benchmark tool with MPTCP, the kernel panics in\n\u0027mptcp_can_accept_new_subflow\u0027 because subflow_req-\u003emsk is NULL.\n\nCall trace:\n\n mptcp_can_accept_new_subflow (./net/mptcp/subflow.c:63 (discriminator 4)) (P)\n subflow_syn_recv_sock (./net/mptcp/subflow.c:854)\n tcp_check_req (./net/ipv4/tcp_minisocks.c:863)\n tcp_v4_rcv (./net/ipv4/tcp_ipv4.c:2268)\n ip_protocol_deliver_rcu (./net/ipv4/ip_input.c:207)\n ip_local_deliver_finish (./net/ipv4/ip_input.c:234)\n ip_local_deliver (./net/ipv4/ip_input.c:254)\n ip_rcv_finish (./net/ipv4/ip_input.c:449)\n ...\n\nAccording to the debug log, the same req received two SYN-ACK in a very\nshort time, very likely because the client retransmits the syn ack due\nto multiple reasons.\n\nEven if the packets are transmitted with a relevant time interval, they\ncan be processed by the server on different CPUs concurrently). The\n\u0027subflow_req-\u003emsk\u0027 ownership is transferred to the subflow the first,\nand there will be a risk of a null pointer dereference here.\n\nThis patch fixes this issue by moving the \u0027subflow_req-\u003emsk\u0027 under the\n`own_req == true` conditional.\n\nNote that the !msk check in subflow_hmac_valid() can be dropped, because\nthe same check already exists under the own_req mpj branch where the\ncode has been moved to." }, { "lang": "es", "value": "En el kernel de Linux, se ha resuelto la siguiente vulnerabilidad: mptcp: se corrige el puntero NULL en can_accept_new_subflow Al probar la herramienta de evaluaci\u00f3n comparativa valkey con MPTCP, el kernel entra en p\u00e1nico en \u0027mptcp_can_accept_new_subflow\u0027 porque subflow_req-\u0026gt;msk es NULL. Rastreo de llamadas: mptcp_can_accept_new_subflow (./net/mptcp/subflow.c:63 (discriminador 4)) (P) subflow_syn_recv_sock (./net/mptcp/subflow.c:854) tcp_check_req (./net/ipv4/tcp_minisocks.c:863) tcp_v4_rcv (./net/ipv4/tcp_ipv4.c:2268) ip_protocol_deliver_rcu (./net/ipv4/ip_input.c:207) ip_local_deliver_finish (./net/ipv4/ip_input.c:234) ip_local_deliver (./net/ipv4/ip_input.c:254) ip_rcv_finish (./net/ipv4/ip_input.c:449) ... Seg\u00fan el registro de depuraci\u00f3n, la misma solicitud recibi\u00f3 dos SYN-ACK en muy poco tiempo, probablemente porque el cliente retransmite el SYN-ACK por varias razones. Incluso si los paquetes se transmiten con un intervalo de tiempo relevante, el servidor puede procesarlos en diferentes CPU simult\u00e1neamente. La propiedad de \u0027subflow_req-\u0026gt;msk\u0027 se transfiere primero al subflujo, lo que conlleva el riesgo de una desreferencia de puntero nulo. Este parche corrige este problema moviendo \u0027subflow_req-\u0026gt;msk\u0027 bajo la condici\u00f3n `own_req == true`. Tenga en cuenta que la comprobaci\u00f3n !msk en subflow_hmac_valid() puede omitirse, ya que ya existe en la rama own_req de mpj, donde se ha movido el c\u00f3digo." } ], "id": "CVE-2025-23145", "lastModified": "2025-05-02T13:53:20.943", "metrics": {}, "published": "2025-05-01T13:15:50.343", "references": [ { "source": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67", "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/443041deb5ef6a1289a99ed95015ec7442f141dc" }, { "source": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67", "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/4b2649b9717678aeb097893cc49f59311a1ecab0" }, { "source": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67", "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/7f9ae060ed64aef8f174c5f1ea513825b1be9af1" }, { "source": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67", "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/855bf0aacd51fced11ea9aa0d5101ee0febaeadb" }, { "source": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67", "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/8cf7fef1bb2ffea7792bcbf71ca00216cecc725d" }, { "source": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67", "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/b3088bd2a6790c8efff139d86d7a9d0b1305977b" }, { "source": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67", "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/dc81e41a307df523072186b241fa8244fecd7803" }, { "source": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67", "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/efd58a8dd9e7a709a90ee486a4247c923d27296f" } ], "sourceIdentifier": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67", "vulnStatus": "Awaiting Analysis" }
Loading…
Loading…
Sightings
Author | Source | Type | Date |
---|
Nomenclature
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or seen somewhere by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability is confirmed from an analyst perspective.
- Exploited: This vulnerability was exploited and seen by the user reporting the sighting.
- Patched: This vulnerability was successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.
- Not exploited: This vulnerability was not exploited or seen by the user reporting the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expresses doubt about the veracity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: This vulnerability was not successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.
Loading…
Loading…