CVE-2024-27031 : Detail

CVE-2024-27031

5.5
/
Medium
0.04%V4
Local
2024-05-01
12h53 +00:00
2024-12-19
08h52 +00:00
CVE.org
NVD
Notifications for a CVE
Stay informed of any changes for a specific CVE.
Notifications manage

CVE Descriptions

NFS: Fix nfs_netfs_issue_read() xarray locking for writeback interrupt

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: NFS: Fix nfs_netfs_issue_read() xarray locking for writeback interrupt The loop inside nfs_netfs_issue_read() currently does not disable interrupts while iterating through pages in the xarray to submit for NFS read. This is not safe though since after taking xa_lock, another page in the mapping could be processed for writeback inside an interrupt, and deadlock can occur. The fix is simple and clean if we use xa_for_each_range(), which handles the iteration with RCU while reducing code complexity. The problem is easily reproduced with the following test: mount -o vers=3,fsc 127.0.0.1:/export /mnt/nfs dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/nfs/file1.bin bs=4096 count=1 echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches dd if=/mnt/nfs/file1.bin of=/dev/null umount /mnt/nfs On the console with a lockdep-enabled kernel a message similar to the following will be seen: ================================ WARNING: inconsistent lock state 6.7.0-lockdbg+ #10 Not tainted -------------------------------- inconsistent {IN-SOFTIRQ-W} -> {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} usage. test5/1708 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE1:SE1] takes: ffff888127baa598 (&xa->xa_lock#4){+.?.}-{3:3}, at: nfs_netfs_issue_read+0x1b2/0x4b0 [nfs] {IN-SOFTIRQ-W} state was registered at: lock_acquire+0x144/0x380 _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x4e/0xa0 __folio_end_writeback+0x17e/0x5c0 folio_end_writeback+0x93/0x1b0 iomap_finish_ioend+0xeb/0x6a0 blk_update_request+0x204/0x7f0 blk_mq_end_request+0x30/0x1c0 blk_complete_reqs+0x7e/0xa0 __do_softirq+0x113/0x544 __irq_exit_rcu+0xfe/0x120 irq_exit_rcu+0xe/0x20 sysvec_call_function_single+0x6f/0x90 asm_sysvec_call_function_single+0x1a/0x20 pv_native_safe_halt+0xf/0x20 default_idle+0x9/0x20 default_idle_call+0x67/0xa0 do_idle+0x2b5/0x300 cpu_startup_entry+0x34/0x40 start_secondary+0x19d/0x1c0 secondary_startup_64_no_verify+0x18f/0x19b irq event stamp: 176891 hardirqs last enabled at (176891): [] _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x44/0x60 hardirqs last disabled at (176890): [] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x79/0xa0 softirqs last enabled at (176646): [] __irq_exit_rcu+0xfe/0x120 softirqs last disabled at (176633): [] __irq_exit_rcu+0xfe/0x120 other info that might help us debug this: Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 ---- lock(&xa->xa_lock#4); lock(&xa->xa_lock#4); *** DEADLOCK *** 2 locks held by test5/1708: #0: ffff888127baa498 (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#22){++++}-{4:4}, at: nfs_start_io_read+0x28/0x90 [nfs] #1: ffff888127baa650 (mapping.invalidate_lock#3){.+.+}-{4:4}, at: page_cache_ra_unbounded+0xa4/0x280 stack backtrace: CPU: 6 PID: 1708 Comm: test5 Kdump: loaded Not tainted 6.7.0-lockdbg+ Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS 1.16.3-1.fc39 04/01/2014 Call Trace: dump_stack_lvl+0x5b/0x90 mark_lock+0xb3f/0xd20 __lock_acquire+0x77b/0x3360 _raw_spin_lock+0x34/0x80 nfs_netfs_issue_read+0x1b2/0x4b0 [nfs] netfs_begin_read+0x77f/0x980 [netfs] nfs_netfs_readahead+0x45/0x60 [nfs] nfs_readahead+0x323/0x5a0 [nfs] read_pages+0xf3/0x5c0 page_cache_ra_unbounded+0x1c8/0x280 filemap_get_pages+0x38c/0xae0 filemap_read+0x206/0x5e0 nfs_file_read+0xb7/0x140 [nfs] vfs_read+0x2a9/0x460 ksys_read+0xb7/0x140

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.

 nvd@nist.gov

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) 6.4 To (excluding) 6.6.23

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.7 To (excluding) 6.7.11

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.8 To (excluding) 6.8.2

References

The information presented on CVE Find originates from several carefully selected reference sources. CVE data is provided by MITRE Corporation and the National Vulnerability Database (NVD). The Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog is sourced from the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), while EPSS scores come from FIRST.org. Additionally, data regarding software weaknesses (CWE) and common attack patterns (CAPEC) is maintained by MITRE Corporation, and information on hardware and software configurations (CPE) is provided by the NVD.