CVE-2024-35885 : Detail

CVE-2024-35885

5.5
/
Medium
Memory Corruption
0.06%V4
Local
2024-05-19
08h34 +00:00
2024-12-19
08h57 +00:00
CVE.org
NVD
Notifications for a CVE
Stay informed of any changes for a specific CVE.
Notifications manage

CVE Descriptions

mlxbf_gige: stop interface during shutdown

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mlxbf_gige: stop interface during shutdown The mlxbf_gige driver intermittantly encounters a NULL pointer exception while the system is shutting down via "reboot" command. The mlxbf_driver will experience an exception right after executing its shutdown() method. One example of this exception is: Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address 0000000000000070 Mem abort info: ESR = 0x0000000096000004 EC = 0x25: DABT (current EL), IL = 32 bits SET = 0, FnV = 0 EA = 0, S1PTW = 0 FSC = 0x04: level 0 translation fault Data abort info: ISV = 0, ISS = 0x00000004 CM = 0, WnR = 0 user pgtable: 4k pages, 48-bit VAs, pgdp=000000011d373000 [0000000000000070] pgd=0000000000000000, p4d=0000000000000000 Internal error: Oops: 96000004 [#1] SMP CPU: 0 PID: 13 Comm: ksoftirqd/0 Tainted: G S OE 5.15.0-bf.6.gef6992a #1 Hardware name: https://www.mellanox.com BlueField SoC/BlueField SoC, BIOS 4.0.2.12669 Apr 21 2023 pstate: 20400009 (nzCv daif +PAN -UAO -TCO -DIT -SSBS BTYPE=--) pc : mlxbf_gige_handle_tx_complete+0xc8/0x170 [mlxbf_gige] lr : mlxbf_gige_poll+0x54/0x160 [mlxbf_gige] sp : ffff8000080d3c10 x29: ffff8000080d3c10 x28: ffffcce72cbb7000 x27: ffff8000080d3d58 x26: ffff0000814e7340 x25: ffff331cd1a05000 x24: ffffcce72c4ea008 x23: ffff0000814e4b40 x22: ffff0000814e4d10 x21: ffff0000814e4128 x20: 0000000000000000 x19: ffff0000814e4a80 x18: ffffffffffffffff x17: 000000000000001c x16: ffffcce72b4553f4 x15: ffff80008805b8a7 x14: 0000000000000000 x13: 0000000000000030 x12: 0101010101010101 x11: 7f7f7f7f7f7f7f7f x10: c2ac898b17576267 x9 : ffffcce720fa5404 x8 : ffff000080812138 x7 : 0000000000002e9a x6 : 0000000000000080 x5 : ffff00008de3b000 x4 : 0000000000000000 x3 : 0000000000000001 x2 : 0000000000000000 x1 : 0000000000000000 x0 : 0000000000000000 Call trace: mlxbf_gige_handle_tx_complete+0xc8/0x170 [mlxbf_gige] mlxbf_gige_poll+0x54/0x160 [mlxbf_gige] __napi_poll+0x40/0x1c8 net_rx_action+0x314/0x3a0 __do_softirq+0x128/0x334 run_ksoftirqd+0x54/0x6c smpboot_thread_fn+0x14c/0x190 kthread+0x10c/0x110 ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20 Code: 8b070000 f9000ea0 f95056c0 f86178a1 (b9407002) ---[ end trace 7cc3941aa0d8e6a4 ]--- Kernel panic - not syncing: Oops: Fatal exception in interrupt Kernel Offset: 0x4ce722520000 from 0xffff800008000000 PHYS_OFFSET: 0x80000000 CPU features: 0x000005c1,a3330e5a Memory Limit: none ---[ end Kernel panic - not syncing: Oops: Fatal exception in interrupt ]--- During system shutdown, the mlxbf_gige driver's shutdown() is always executed. However, the driver's stop() method will only execute if networking interface configuration logic within the Linux distribution has been setup to do so. If shutdown() executes but stop() does not execute, NAPI remains enabled and this can lead to an exception if NAPI is scheduled while the hardware interface has only been partially deinitialized. The networking interface managed by the mlxbf_gige driver must be properly stopped during system shutdown so that IFF_UP is cleared, the hardware interface is put into a clean state, and NAPI is fully deinitialized.

CVE Informations

Related Weaknesses

CWE-ID Weakness Name Source
CWE-476 NULL Pointer Dereference
The product dereferences a pointer that it expects to be valid but is NULL.

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) 5.14 To (excluding) 5.15.154

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.16 To (excluding) 6.1.85

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.2 To (excluding) 6.6.26

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.7 To (excluding) 6.8.5

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.9

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.9

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.