-------------------------+ trace_sched_switch() -> | bpf_prog_xyz() -> +-> deadlock selinux_lockdown() -> | audit_log_end() -> | wake_up_interruptible() -> | try_to_wake_up() -> | rq_lock(rq) --------------+ What's worse is that the intention of 59438b46471a to further restrict lockdown settings for specific applications in respect to the global lockdown policy is completely broken for BPF. The SELinux policy rule for the current lockdown check looks something like this: allow : lockdown { }; However, this doesn't match with the 'current' task where the security_locked_down() is executed, example: httpd does a syscall. There is a tracing program attached to the syscall which triggers a BPF program to run, which ends up doing a bpf_probe_read_kernel{,_str}() helper call. The selinux_lockdown() hook does the permission check against 'current', that is, httpd in this example. httpd has literally zero relation to this tracing program, and it would be nonsensical having to write an SELinux policy rule against httpd to let the tracing helper pass. The policy in this case needs to be against the entity that is installing the BPF program. For example, if bpftrace would generate a histogram of syscall counts by user space application: bpftrace -e 'tracepoint:raw_syscalls:sys_enter { @[comm] = count(); }' bpftrace would then go and generate a BPF program from this internally. One way of doing it [for the sake of the example] could be to call bpf_get_current_task() helper and then access current->comm via one of bpf_probe_read_kernel{,_str}() helpers. So the program itself has nothing to do with httpd or any other random app doing a syscall here. The BPF program _explicitly initiated_ the lockdown check. The allow/deny policy belongs in the context of bpftrace: meaning, you want to grant bpftrace access to use these helpers, but other tracers on the system like my_random_tracer _not_. Therefore fix all three issues at the same time by taking a completely different approach for the security_locked_down() hook, that is, move the check into the program verification phase where we actually retrieve the BPF func proto. This also reliably gets the task (current) that is trying to install the BPF tracing program, e.g. bpftrace/bcc/perf/systemtap/etc, and it also fixes the OOM since we're moving this out of the BPF helper's fast-path which can be called several millions of times per second. The check is then also in line with other security_locked_down() hooks in the system where the enforcement is performed at open/load time, for example, open_kcore() for /proc/kcore access or module_sig_check() for module signatures just to pick f ---truncated---">

CVE-2021-47128 : Detail

CVE-2021-47128

5.5
/
Medium
0.04%V3
Local
2024-03-15
20h14 +00:00
2024-12-19
07h35 +00:00
CVE.org
NVD
Notifications for a CVE
Stay informed of any changes for a specific CVE.
Notifications manage

CVE Descriptions

bpf, lockdown, audit: Fix buggy SELinux lockdown permission checks

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: bpf, lockdown, audit: Fix buggy SELinux lockdown permission checks Commit 59438b46471a ("security,lockdown,selinux: implement SELinux lockdown") added an implementation of the locked_down LSM hook to SELinux, with the aim to restrict which domains are allowed to perform operations that would breach lockdown. This is indirectly also getting audit subsystem involved to report events. The latter is problematic, as reported by Ondrej and Serhei, since it can bring down the whole system via audit: 1) The audit events that are triggered due to calls to security_locked_down() can OOM kill a machine, see below details [0]. 2) It also seems to be causing a deadlock via avc_has_perm()/slow_avc_audit() when trying to wake up kauditd, for example, when using trace_sched_switch() tracepoint, see details in [1]. Triggering this was not via some hypothetical corner case, but with existing tools like runqlat & runqslower from bcc, for example, which make use of this tracepoint. Rough call sequence goes like: rq_lock(rq) -> -------------------------+ trace_sched_switch() -> | bpf_prog_xyz() -> +-> deadlock selinux_lockdown() -> | audit_log_end() -> | wake_up_interruptible() -> | try_to_wake_up() -> | rq_lock(rq) --------------+ What's worse is that the intention of 59438b46471a to further restrict lockdown settings for specific applications in respect to the global lockdown policy is completely broken for BPF. The SELinux policy rule for the current lockdown check looks something like this: allow : lockdown { }; However, this doesn't match with the 'current' task where the security_locked_down() is executed, example: httpd does a syscall. There is a tracing program attached to the syscall which triggers a BPF program to run, which ends up doing a bpf_probe_read_kernel{,_str}() helper call. The selinux_lockdown() hook does the permission check against 'current', that is, httpd in this example. httpd has literally zero relation to this tracing program, and it would be nonsensical having to write an SELinux policy rule against httpd to let the tracing helper pass. The policy in this case needs to be against the entity that is installing the BPF program. For example, if bpftrace would generate a histogram of syscall counts by user space application: bpftrace -e 'tracepoint:raw_syscalls:sys_enter { @[comm] = count(); }' bpftrace would then go and generate a BPF program from this internally. One way of doing it [for the sake of the example] could be to call bpf_get_current_task() helper and then access current->comm via one of bpf_probe_read_kernel{,_str}() helpers. So the program itself has nothing to do with httpd or any other random app doing a syscall here. The BPF program _explicitly initiated_ the lockdown check. The allow/deny policy belongs in the context of bpftrace: meaning, you want to grant bpftrace access to use these helpers, but other tracers on the system like my_random_tracer _not_. Therefore fix all three issues at the same time by taking a completely different approach for the security_locked_down() hook, that is, move the check into the program verification phase where we actually retrieve the BPF func proto. This also reliably gets the task (current) that is trying to install the BPF tracing program, e.g. bpftrace/bcc/perf/systemtap/etc, and it also fixes the OOM since we're moving this out of the BPF helper's fast-path which can be called several millions of times per second. The check is then also in line with other security_locked_down() hooks in the system where the enforcement is performed at open/load time, for example, open_kcore() for /proc/kcore access or module_sig_check() for module signatures just to pick f ---truncated---

CVE Informations

Related Weaknesses

CWE-ID Weakness Name Source
CWE-667 Improper Locking
The product does not properly acquire or release a lock on a resource, leading to unexpected resource state changes and behaviors.

Metrics

Metrics Score Severity CVSS Vector Source
V3.1 5.5 MEDIUM CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/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.

Low

Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success when attacking the vulnerable component.

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.

None

There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.

Integrity Impact

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

None

There is no loss of integrity within 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) 5.10.43

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.11 To (excluding) 5.12.10

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 5.13

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 5.13

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 5.13

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 5.13

References