A flaw was found in dpdk. This flaw allows a malicious vhost-user master to attach an unexpected number of fds as ancillary data to VHOST_USER_GET_INFLIGHT_FD / VHOST_USER_SET_INFLIGHT_FD messages that are not closed by the vhost-user slave. By sending such messages continuously, the vhost-user master exhausts available fd in the vhost-user slave process, leading to a denial of service.
The product does not properly control the allocation and maintenance of a limited resource.
| Name | Vendor | Start Version | End Version |
|---|---|---|---|
| Data_plane_development_kit | Dpdk | 20.02 (including) | 22.03 (excluding) |
| Data_plane_development_kit | Dpdk | 19.11 (including) | 19.11 (including) |
| Data_plane_development_kit | Dpdk | 19.11-rc1 (including) | 19.11-rc1 (including) |
| Data_plane_development_kit | Dpdk | 19.11-rc2 (including) | 19.11-rc2 (including) |
| Data_plane_development_kit | Dpdk | 19.11-rc3 (including) | 19.11-rc3 (including) |
| Data_plane_development_kit | Dpdk | 19.11-rc4 (including) | 19.11-rc4 (including) |
| Data_plane_development_kit | Dpdk | 22.03-rc1 (including) | 22.03-rc1 (including) |
| Data_plane_development_kit | Dpdk | 22.03-rc2 (including) | 22.03-rc2 (including) |
| Data_plane_development_kit | Dpdk | 22.03-rc3 (including) | 22.03-rc3 (including) |
| Fast Datapath for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 | RedHat | openvswitch2.13-0:2.13.0-180.el8fdp | * |
| Fast Datapath for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 | RedHat | openvswitch2.15-0:2.15.0-99.el8fdp | * |
| Fast Datapath for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 | RedHat | openvswitch2.16-0:2.16.0-74.el8fdp | * |
| Dpdk | Ubuntu | devel | * |
| Dpdk | Ubuntu | esm-infra/focal | * |
| Dpdk | Ubuntu | focal | * |
| Dpdk | Ubuntu | impish | * |
| Dpdk | Ubuntu | jammy | * |
| Dpdk | Ubuntu | kinetic | * |
Mitigation of resource exhaustion attacks requires that the target system either:
The first of these solutions is an issue in itself though, since it may allow attackers to prevent the use of the system by a particular valid user. If the attacker impersonates the valid user, they may be able to prevent the user from accessing the server in question.
The second solution is simply difficult to effectively institute – and even when properly done, it does not provide a full solution. It simply makes the attack require more resources on the part of the attacker.