CVE-2024-26768 : Detail

CVE-2024-26768

6.5
/
Medium
Overflow
0.05%V3
Local
2024-04-03
17h00 +00:00
2024-12-19
08h47 +00:00
CVE.org
NVD
Notifications for a CVE
Stay informed of any changes for a specific CVE.
Notifications manage

CVE Descriptions

LoongArch: Change acpi_core_pic[NR_CPUS] to acpi_core_pic[MAX_CORE_PIC]

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: LoongArch: Change acpi_core_pic[NR_CPUS] to acpi_core_pic[MAX_CORE_PIC] With default config, the value of NR_CPUS is 64. When HW platform has more then 64 cpus, system will crash on these platforms. MAX_CORE_PIC is the maximum cpu number in MADT table (max physical number) which can exceed the supported maximum cpu number (NR_CPUS, max logical number), but kernel should not crash. Kernel should boot cpus with NR_CPUS, let the remainder cpus stay in BIOS. The potential crash reason is that the array acpi_core_pic[NR_CPUS] can be overflowed when parsing MADT table, and it is obvious that CORE_PIC should be corresponding to physical core rather than logical core, so it is better to define the array as acpi_core_pic[MAX_CORE_PIC]. With the patch, system can boot up 64 vcpus with qemu parameter -smp 128, otherwise system will crash with the following message. [ 0.000000] CPU 0 Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address 0000420000004259, era == 90000000037a5f0c, ra == 90000000037a46ec [ 0.000000] Oops[#1]: [ 0.000000] CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper Not tainted 6.8.0-rc2+ #192 [ 0.000000] Hardware name: QEMU QEMU Virtual Machine, BIOS unknown 2/2/2022 [ 0.000000] pc 90000000037a5f0c ra 90000000037a46ec tp 9000000003c90000 sp 9000000003c93d60 [ 0.000000] a0 0000000000000019 a1 9000000003d93bc0 a2 0000000000000000 a3 9000000003c93bd8 [ 0.000000] a4 9000000003c93a74 a5 9000000083c93a67 a6 9000000003c938f0 a7 0000000000000005 [ 0.000000] t0 0000420000004201 t1 0000000000000000 t2 0000000000000001 t3 0000000000000001 [ 0.000000] t4 0000000000000003 t5 0000000000000000 t6 0000000000000030 t7 0000000000000063 [ 0.000000] t8 0000000000000014 u0 ffffffffffffffff s9 0000000000000000 s0 9000000003caee98 [ 0.000000] s1 90000000041b0480 s2 9000000003c93da0 s3 9000000003c93d98 s4 9000000003c93d90 [ 0.000000] s5 9000000003caa000 s6 000000000a7fd000 s7 000000000f556b60 s8 000000000e0a4330 [ 0.000000] ra: 90000000037a46ec platform_init+0x214/0x250 [ 0.000000] ERA: 90000000037a5f0c efi_runtime_init+0x30/0x94 [ 0.000000] CRMD: 000000b0 (PLV0 -IE -DA +PG DACF=CC DACM=CC -WE) [ 0.000000] PRMD: 00000000 (PPLV0 -PIE -PWE) [ 0.000000] EUEN: 00000000 (-FPE -SXE -ASXE -BTE) [ 0.000000] ECFG: 00070800 (LIE=11 VS=7) [ 0.000000] ESTAT: 00010000 [PIL] (IS= ECode=1 EsubCode=0) [ 0.000000] BADV: 0000420000004259 [ 0.000000] PRID: 0014c010 (Loongson-64bit, Loongson-3A5000) [ 0.000000] Modules linked in: [ 0.000000] Process swapper (pid: 0, threadinfo=(____ptrval____), task=(____ptrval____)) [ 0.000000] Stack : 9000000003c93a14 9000000003800898 90000000041844f8 90000000037a46ec [ 0.000000] 000000000a7fd000 0000000008290000 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 [ 0.000000] 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 00000000019d8000 000000000f556b60 [ 0.000000] 000000000a7fd000 000000000f556b08 9000000003ca7700 9000000003800000 [ 0.000000] 9000000003c93e50 9000000003800898 9000000003800108 90000000037a484c [ 0.000000] 000000000e0a4330 000000000f556b60 000000000a7fd000 000000000f556b08 [ 0.000000] 9000000003ca7700 9000000004184000 0000000000200000 000000000e02b018 [ 0.000000] 000000000a7fd000 90000000037a0790 9000000003800108 0000000000000000 [ 0.000000] 0000000000000000 000000000e0a4330 000000000f556b60 000000000a7fd000 [ 0.000000] 000000000f556b08 000000000eaae298 000000000eaa5040 0000000000200000 [ 0.000000] ... [ 0.000000] Call Trace: [ 0.000000] [<90000000037a5f0c>] efi_runtime_init+0x30/0x94 [ 0.000000] [<90000000037a46ec>] platform_init+0x214/0x250 [ 0.000000] [<90000000037a484c>] setup_arch+0x124/0x45c [ 0.000000] [<90000000037a0790>] start_kernel+0x90/0x670 [ 0.000000] [<900000000378b0d8>] kernel_entry+0xd8/0xdc

CVE Informations

Related Weaknesses

CWE-ID Weakness Name Source
CWE-120 Buffer Copy without Checking Size of Input ('Classic Buffer Overflow')
The product copies an input buffer to an output buffer without verifying that the size of the input buffer is less than the size of the output buffer, leading to a buffer overflow.

Metrics

Metrics Score Severity CVSS Vector Source
V3.1 6.5 MEDIUM CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/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.

Changed

An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.

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.

 134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0

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) 5.19 To (excluding) 6.6.19

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.7 To (excluding) 6.7.7

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.8

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.8

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.8

References