CVE-2024-35907 : Detail

CVE-2024-35907

5.5
/
Medium
Memory Corruption
0.05%V4
Local
2024-05-19
08h35 +00:00
2024-12-19
08h58 +00:00
CVE.org
NVD
Notifications for a CVE
Stay informed of any changes for a specific CVE.
Notifications manage

CVE Descriptions

mlxbf_gige: call request_irq() after NAPI initialized

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mlxbf_gige: call request_irq() after NAPI initialized The mlxbf_gige driver encounters a NULL pointer exception in mlxbf_gige_open() when kdump is enabled. The sequence to reproduce the exception is as follows: a) enable kdump b) trigger kdump via "echo c > /proc/sysrq-trigger" c) kdump kernel executes d) kdump kernel loads mlxbf_gige module e) the mlxbf_gige module runs its open() as the the "oob_net0" interface is brought up f) mlxbf_gige module will experience an exception during its open(), something like: Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address 0000000000000000 Mem abort info: ESR = 0x0000000086000004 EC = 0x21: IABT (current EL), IL = 32 bits SET = 0, FnV = 0 EA = 0, S1PTW = 0 FSC = 0x04: level 0 translation fault user pgtable: 4k pages, 48-bit VAs, pgdp=00000000e29a4000 [0000000000000000] pgd=0000000000000000, p4d=0000000000000000 Internal error: Oops: 0000000086000004 [#1] SMP CPU: 0 PID: 812 Comm: NetworkManager Tainted: G OE 5.15.0-1035-bluefield #37-Ubuntu Hardware name: https://www.mellanox.com BlueField-3 SmartNIC Main Card/BlueField-3 SmartNIC Main Card, BIOS 4.6.0.13024 Jan 19 2024 pstate: 80400009 (Nzcv daif +PAN -UAO -TCO -DIT -SSBS BTYPE=--) pc : 0x0 lr : __napi_poll+0x40/0x230 sp : ffff800008003e00 x29: ffff800008003e00 x28: 0000000000000000 x27: 00000000ffffffff x26: ffff000066027238 x25: ffff00007cedec00 x24: ffff800008003ec8 x23: 000000000000012c x22: ffff800008003eb7 x21: 0000000000000000 x20: 0000000000000001 x19: ffff000066027238 x18: 0000000000000000 x17: ffff578fcb450000 x16: ffffa870b083c7c0 x15: 0000aaab010441d0 x14: 0000000000000001 x13: 00726f7272655f65 x12: 6769675f6662786c x11: 0000000000000000 x10: 0000000000000000 x9 : ffffa870b0842398 x8 : 0000000000000004 x7 : fe5a48b9069706ea x6 : 17fdb11fc84ae0d2 x5 : d94a82549d594f35 x4 : 0000000000000000 x3 : 0000000000400100 x2 : 0000000000000000 x1 : 0000000000000000 x0 : ffff000066027238 Call trace: 0x0 net_rx_action+0x178/0x360 __do_softirq+0x15c/0x428 __irq_exit_rcu+0xac/0xec irq_exit+0x18/0x2c handle_domain_irq+0x6c/0xa0 gic_handle_irq+0xec/0x1b0 call_on_irq_stack+0x20/0x2c do_interrupt_handler+0x5c/0x70 el1_interrupt+0x30/0x50 el1h_64_irq_handler+0x18/0x2c el1h_64_irq+0x7c/0x80 __setup_irq+0x4c0/0x950 request_threaded_irq+0xf4/0x1bc mlxbf_gige_request_irqs+0x68/0x110 [mlxbf_gige] mlxbf_gige_open+0x5c/0x170 [mlxbf_gige] __dev_open+0x100/0x220 __dev_change_flags+0x16c/0x1f0 dev_change_flags+0x2c/0x70 do_setlink+0x220/0xa40 __rtnl_newlink+0x56c/0x8a0 rtnl_newlink+0x58/0x84 rtnetlink_rcv_msg+0x138/0x3c4 netlink_rcv_skb+0x64/0x130 rtnetlink_rcv+0x20/0x30 netlink_unicast+0x2ec/0x360 netlink_sendmsg+0x278/0x490 __sock_sendmsg+0x5c/0x6c ____sys_sendmsg+0x290/0x2d4 ___sys_sendmsg+0x84/0xd0 __sys_sendmsg+0x70/0xd0 __arm64_sys_sendmsg+0x2c/0x40 invoke_syscall+0x78/0x100 el0_svc_common.constprop.0+0x54/0x184 do_el0_svc+0x30/0xac el0_svc+0x48/0x160 el0t_64_sync_handler+0xa4/0x12c el0t_64_sync+0x1a4/0x1a8 Code: bad PC value ---[ end trace 7d1c3f3bf9d81885 ]--- Kernel panic - not syncing: Oops: Fatal exception in interrupt Kernel Offset: 0x2870a7a00000 from 0xffff800008000000 PHYS_OFFSET: 0x80000000 CPU features: 0x0,000005c1,a3332a5a Memory Limit: none ---[ end Kernel panic - not syncing: Oops: Fatal exception in interrupt ]--- The exception happens because there is a pending RX interrupt before the call to request_irq(RX IRQ) executes. Then, the RX IRQ handler fires immediately after this request_irq() completes. The ---truncated---

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

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.