protocol_major) { hidpp_root_get_protocol_version() hidpp->protocol_major = response.rap.params[0]; } We can actually see this race hit in the dmesg in the abrt output attached to rhbz#2227968: [ 3064.624215] logitech-hidpp-device 0003:046D:4071.0049: HID++ 4.5 device connected. [ 3064.658184] logitech-hidpp-device 0003:046D:4071.0049: HID++ 4.5 device connected. Testing with extra logging added has shown that after this the 2 threads take turn grabbing the hw access mutex (send_mutex) so they ping-pong through all the other TOCTOU cases managing to hit all of them: 2. Updating the name to the HIDPP name (harmless race): if (hidpp->name == hdev->name) { ... hidpp->name = new_name; } 3. Initializing the power_supply class for the battery (problematic!): hidpp_initialize_battery() { if (hidpp->battery.ps) return 0; probe_battery(); /* Blocks, threads take turns executing this */ hidpp->battery.desc.properties = devm_kmemdup(dev, hidpp_battery_props, cnt, GFP_KERNEL); hidpp->battery.ps = devm_power_supply_register(&hidpp->hid_dev->dev, &hidpp->battery.desc, cfg); } 4. Creating delayed input_device (potentially problematic): if (hidpp->delayed_input) return; hidpp->delayed_input = hidpp_allocate_input(hdev); The really big problem here is 3. Hitting the race leads to the following sequence: hidpp->battery.desc.properties = devm_kmemdup(dev, hidpp_battery_props, cnt, GFP_KERNEL); hidpp->battery.ps = devm_power_supply_register(&hidpp->hid_dev->dev, &hidpp->battery.desc, cfg); ... hidpp->battery.desc.properties = devm_kmemdup(dev, hidpp_battery_props, cnt, GFP_KERNEL); hidpp->battery.ps = devm_power_supply_register(&hidpp->hid_dev->dev, &hidpp->battery.desc, cfg); So now we have registered 2 power supplies for the same battery, which looks a bit weird from userspace's pov but this is not even the really big problem. Notice how: 1. This is all devm-maganaged 2. The hidpp->battery.desc struct is shared between the 2 power supplies 3. hidpp->battery.desc.properties points to the result from the second devm_kmemdup() This causes a use after free scenario on USB disconnect of the receiver: 1. The last registered power supply class device gets unregistered 2. The memory from the last devm_kmemdup() call gets freed, hidpp->battery.desc.properties now points to freed memory 3. The first registered power supply class device gets unregistered, this involves sending a remove uevent to userspace which invokes power_supply_uevent() to fill the uevent data 4. power_supply_uevent() uses hidpp->battery.desc.properties which now points to freed memory leading to backtraces like this one: Sep 22 20:01:35 eric kernel: BUG: unable to handle page fault for address: ffffb2140e017f08 ... Sep 22 20:01:35 eric kernel: Workqueue: usb_hub_wq hub_event Sep 22 20:01:35 eric kernel: RIP: 0010:power_supply_uevent+0xee/0x1d0 ... Sep 22 20:01:35 eric kernel: ? asm_exc_page_fault+0x26/0x30 Sep 22 20:01:35 eric kernel: ? power_supply_uevent+0xee/0x1d0 Sep 22 20:01:35 eric kernel: ? power_supply_uevent+0x10d/0x1d0 Sep 22 20:01:35 eric kernel: dev_uevent+0x10f/0x2d0 Sep 22 20:01:35 eric kernel: kobject_uevent_env+0x291/0x680 Sep 22 20:01:35 eric kernel: ---truncated---">

CVE-2023-52478 : Detail

CVE-2023-52478

4.7
/
Medium
0.04%V3
Local
2024-02-29
05h43 +00:00
2024-12-19
08h20 +00:00
CVE.org
NVD
Notifications for a CVE
Stay informed of any changes for a specific CVE.
Notifications manage

CVE Descriptions

HID: logitech-hidpp: Fix kernel crash on receiver USB disconnect

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: HID: logitech-hidpp: Fix kernel crash on receiver USB disconnect hidpp_connect_event() has *four* time-of-check vs time-of-use (TOCTOU) races when it races with itself. hidpp_connect_event() primarily runs from a workqueue but it also runs on probe() and if a "device-connected" packet is received by the hw when the thread running hidpp_connect_event() from probe() is waiting on the hw, then a second thread running hidpp_connect_event() will be started from the workqueue. This opens the following races (note the below code is simplified): 1. Retrieving + printing the protocol (harmless race): if (!hidpp->protocol_major) { hidpp_root_get_protocol_version() hidpp->protocol_major = response.rap.params[0]; } We can actually see this race hit in the dmesg in the abrt output attached to rhbz#2227968: [ 3064.624215] logitech-hidpp-device 0003:046D:4071.0049: HID++ 4.5 device connected. [ 3064.658184] logitech-hidpp-device 0003:046D:4071.0049: HID++ 4.5 device connected. Testing with extra logging added has shown that after this the 2 threads take turn grabbing the hw access mutex (send_mutex) so they ping-pong through all the other TOCTOU cases managing to hit all of them: 2. Updating the name to the HIDPP name (harmless race): if (hidpp->name == hdev->name) { ... hidpp->name = new_name; } 3. Initializing the power_supply class for the battery (problematic!): hidpp_initialize_battery() { if (hidpp->battery.ps) return 0; probe_battery(); /* Blocks, threads take turns executing this */ hidpp->battery.desc.properties = devm_kmemdup(dev, hidpp_battery_props, cnt, GFP_KERNEL); hidpp->battery.ps = devm_power_supply_register(&hidpp->hid_dev->dev, &hidpp->battery.desc, cfg); } 4. Creating delayed input_device (potentially problematic): if (hidpp->delayed_input) return; hidpp->delayed_input = hidpp_allocate_input(hdev); The really big problem here is 3. Hitting the race leads to the following sequence: hidpp->battery.desc.properties = devm_kmemdup(dev, hidpp_battery_props, cnt, GFP_KERNEL); hidpp->battery.ps = devm_power_supply_register(&hidpp->hid_dev->dev, &hidpp->battery.desc, cfg); ... hidpp->battery.desc.properties = devm_kmemdup(dev, hidpp_battery_props, cnt, GFP_KERNEL); hidpp->battery.ps = devm_power_supply_register(&hidpp->hid_dev->dev, &hidpp->battery.desc, cfg); So now we have registered 2 power supplies for the same battery, which looks a bit weird from userspace's pov but this is not even the really big problem. Notice how: 1. This is all devm-maganaged 2. The hidpp->battery.desc struct is shared between the 2 power supplies 3. hidpp->battery.desc.properties points to the result from the second devm_kmemdup() This causes a use after free scenario on USB disconnect of the receiver: 1. The last registered power supply class device gets unregistered 2. The memory from the last devm_kmemdup() call gets freed, hidpp->battery.desc.properties now points to freed memory 3. The first registered power supply class device gets unregistered, this involves sending a remove uevent to userspace which invokes power_supply_uevent() to fill the uevent data 4. power_supply_uevent() uses hidpp->battery.desc.properties which now points to freed memory leading to backtraces like this one: Sep 22 20:01:35 eric kernel: BUG: unable to handle page fault for address: ffffb2140e017f08 ... Sep 22 20:01:35 eric kernel: Workqueue: usb_hub_wq hub_event Sep 22 20:01:35 eric kernel: RIP: 0010:power_supply_uevent+0xee/0x1d0 ... Sep 22 20:01:35 eric kernel: ? asm_exc_page_fault+0x26/0x30 Sep 22 20:01:35 eric kernel: ? power_supply_uevent+0xee/0x1d0 Sep 22 20:01:35 eric kernel: ? power_supply_uevent+0x10d/0x1d0 Sep 22 20:01:35 eric kernel: dev_uevent+0x10f/0x2d0 Sep 22 20:01:35 eric kernel: kobject_uevent_env+0x291/0x680 Sep 22 20:01:35 eric kernel: ---truncated---

CVE Informations

Related Weaknesses

CWE-ID Weakness Name Source
CWE-367 Time-of-check Time-of-use (TOCTOU) Race Condition
The product checks the state of a resource before using that resource, but the resource's state can change between the check and the use in a way that invalidates the results of the check. This can cause the product to perform invalid actions when the resource is in an unexpected state.

Metrics

Metrics Score Severity CVSS Vector Source
V3.1 4.7 MEDIUM CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/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.

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.

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 To (excluding) 4.14.328

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 4.15 To (excluding) 4.19.297

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 4.20 To (excluding) 5.4.259

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.5 To (excluding) 5.10.199

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.11 To (excluding) 5.15.136

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.16 To (excluding) 6.1.59

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.2 To (excluding) 6.5.8

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.6

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.6

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.6

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.6

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.6

References