CVE-2021-47069 : Detail

CVE-2021-47069

7
/
High
0.04%V3
Local
2024-03-01
21h15 +00:00
2024-12-19
07h34 +00:00
CVE.org
NVD
Notifications for a CVE
Stay informed of any changes for a specific CVE.
Notifications manage

CVE Descriptions

ipc/mqueue, msg, sem: avoid relying on a stack reference past its expiry

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ipc/mqueue, msg, sem: avoid relying on a stack reference past its expiry do_mq_timedreceive calls wq_sleep with a stack local address. The sender (do_mq_timedsend) uses this address to later call pipelined_send. This leads to a very hard to trigger race where a do_mq_timedreceive call might return and leave do_mq_timedsend to rely on an invalid address, causing the following crash: RIP: 0010:wake_q_add_safe+0x13/0x60 Call Trace: __x64_sys_mq_timedsend+0x2a9/0x490 do_syscall_64+0x80/0x680 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9 RIP: 0033:0x7f5928e40343 The race occurs as: 1. do_mq_timedreceive calls wq_sleep with the address of `struct ext_wait_queue` on function stack (aliased as `ewq_addr` here) - it holds a valid `struct ext_wait_queue *` as long as the stack has not been overwritten. 2. `ewq_addr` gets added to info->e_wait_q[RECV].list in wq_add, and do_mq_timedsend receives it via wq_get_first_waiter(info, RECV) to call __pipelined_op. 3. Sender calls __pipelined_op::smp_store_release(&this->state, STATE_READY). Here is where the race window begins. (`this` is `ewq_addr`.) 4. If the receiver wakes up now in do_mq_timedreceive::wq_sleep, it will see `state == STATE_READY` and break. 5. do_mq_timedreceive returns, and `ewq_addr` is no longer guaranteed to be a `struct ext_wait_queue *` since it was on do_mq_timedreceive's stack. (Although the address may not get overwritten until another function happens to touch it, which means it can persist around for an indefinite time.) 6. do_mq_timedsend::__pipelined_op() still believes `ewq_addr` is a `struct ext_wait_queue *`, and uses it to find a task_struct to pass to the wake_q_add_safe call. In the lucky case where nothing has overwritten `ewq_addr` yet, `ewq_addr->task` is the right task_struct. In the unlucky case, __pipelined_op::wake_q_add_safe gets handed a bogus address as the receiver's task_struct causing the crash. do_mq_timedsend::__pipelined_op() should not dereference `this` after setting STATE_READY, as the receiver counterpart is now free to return. Change __pipelined_op to call wake_q_add_safe on the receiver's task_struct returned by get_task_struct, instead of dereferencing `this` which sits on the receiver's stack. As Manfred pointed out, the race potentially also exists in ipc/msg.c::expunge_all and ipc/sem.c::wake_up_sem_queue_prepare. Fix those in the same way.

CVE Informations

Related Weaknesses

CWE-ID Weakness Name Source
CWE-672 Operation on a Resource after Expiration or Release
The product uses, accesses, or otherwise operates on a resource after that resource has been expired, released, or revoked.

Metrics

Metrics Score Severity CVSS Vector Source
V3.1 7 HIGH CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

Base: Exploitabilty Metrics

The Exploitability metrics reflect the characteristics of the thing that is vulnerable, which we refer to formally as the vulnerable component.

Attack Vector

This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible.

Local

The vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities.

Attack Complexity

This metric describes the conditions beyond the attacker’s control that must exist in order to exploit the vulnerability.

High

successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected.

Privileges Required

This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess before successfully exploiting the vulnerability.

Low

The attacker requires privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources.

User Interaction

This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable component.

None

The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any user.

Base: Scope Metrics

The Scope metric captures whether a vulnerability in one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope.

Scope

Formally, a security authority is a mechanism (e.g., an application, an operating system, firmware, a sandbox environment) that defines and enforces access control in terms of how certain subjects/actors (e.g., human users, processes) can access certain restricted objects/resources (e.g., files, CPU, memory) in a controlled manner. All the subjects and objects under the jurisdiction of a single security authority are considered to be under one security scope. If a vulnerability in a vulnerable component can affect a component which is in a different security scope than the vulnerable component, a Scope change occurs. Intuitively, whenever the impact of a vulnerability breaches a security/trust boundary and impacts components outside the security scope in which vulnerable component resides, a Scope change occurs.

Unchanged

An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.

Base: Impact Metrics

The Impact metrics capture the effects of a successfully exploited vulnerability on the component that suffers the worst outcome that is most directly and predictably associated with the attack. Analysts should constrain impacts to a reasonable, final outcome which they are confident an attacker is able to achieve.

Confidentiality Impact

This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information resources managed by a software component due to a successfully exploited vulnerability.

High

There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server.

Integrity Impact

This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information.

High

There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

Availability Impact

This metric measures the impact to the availability of the impacted component resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability.

High

There is a total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Temporal Metrics

The Temporal metrics measure the current state of exploit techniques or code availability, the existence of any patches or workarounds, or the confidence in the description of a vulnerability.

Environmental Metrics

These metrics enable the analyst to customize the CVSS score depending on the importance of the affected IT asset to a user’s organization, measured in terms of Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability.

 [email protected]

EPSS

EPSS is a scoring model that predicts the likelihood of a vulnerability being exploited.

EPSS Score

The EPSS model produces a probability score between 0 and 1 (0 and 100%). The higher the score, the greater the probability that a vulnerability will be exploited.

EPSS Percentile

The percentile is used to rank CVE according to their EPSS score. For example, a CVE in the 95th percentile according to its EPSS score is more likely to be exploited than 95% of other CVE. Thus, the percentile is used to compare the EPSS score of a CVE with that of other CVE.
EPSS First.org

Products Mentioned

Configuraton 0

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.6 To (excluding) 5.10.40

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.11 To (excluding) 5.12.7

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 5.13

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 5.13

References