CVE-2024-36888 : Detail

CVE-2024-36888

6.2
/
Medium
Memory Corruption
0.04%V4
Local
2024-05-30
15h28 +00:00
2024-12-19
09h01 +00:00
CVE.org
NVD
Notifications for a CVE
Stay informed of any changes for a specific CVE.
Notifications manage

CVE Descriptions

workqueue: Fix selection of wake_cpu in kick_pool()

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: workqueue: Fix selection of wake_cpu in kick_pool() With cpu_possible_mask=0-63 and cpu_online_mask=0-7 the following kernel oops was observed: smp: Bringing up secondary CPUs ... smp: Brought up 1 node, 8 CPUs Unable to handle kernel pointer dereference in virtual kernel address space Failing address: 0000000000000000 TEID: 0000000000000803 [..] Call Trace: arch_vcpu_is_preempted+0x12/0x80 select_idle_sibling+0x42/0x560 select_task_rq_fair+0x29a/0x3b0 try_to_wake_up+0x38e/0x6e0 kick_pool+0xa4/0x198 __queue_work.part.0+0x2bc/0x3a8 call_timer_fn+0x36/0x160 __run_timers+0x1e2/0x328 __run_timer_base+0x5a/0x88 run_timer_softirq+0x40/0x78 __do_softirq+0x118/0x388 irq_exit_rcu+0xc0/0xd8 do_ext_irq+0xae/0x168 ext_int_handler+0xbe/0xf0 psw_idle_exit+0x0/0xc default_idle_call+0x3c/0x110 do_idle+0xd4/0x158 cpu_startup_entry+0x40/0x48 rest_init+0xc6/0xc8 start_kernel+0x3c4/0x5e0 startup_continue+0x3c/0x50 The crash is caused by calling arch_vcpu_is_preempted() for an offline CPU. To avoid this, select the cpu with cpumask_any_and_distribute() to mask __pod_cpumask with cpu_online_mask. In case no cpu is left in the pool, skip the assignment. tj: This doesn't fully fix the bug as CPUs can still go down between picking the target CPU and the wake call. Fixing that likely requires adding cpu_online() test to either the sched or s390 arch code. However, regardless of how that is fixed, workqueue shouldn't be picking a CPU which isn't online as that would result in unpredictable and worse behavior.

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 6.2 MEDIUM CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/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.

None

The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.

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.

 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) 6.6 To (excluding) 6.6.31

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.7 To (excluding) 6.8.10

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.9

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.9

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.9

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.9

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.