CVE-2024-44943 : Detail

CVE-2024-44943

5.5
/
Medium
0.04%V3
Local
2024-08-28
07h11 +00:00
2024-12-19
09h18 +00:00
CVE.org
NVD
Notifications for a CVE
Stay informed of any changes for a specific CVE.
Notifications manage

CVE Descriptions

mm: gup: stop abusing try_grab_folio

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm: gup: stop abusing try_grab_folio A kernel warning was reported when pinning folio in CMA memory when launching SEV virtual machine. The splat looks like: [ 464.325306] WARNING: CPU: 13 PID: 6734 at mm/gup.c:1313 __get_user_pages+0x423/0x520 [ 464.325464] CPU: 13 PID: 6734 Comm: qemu-kvm Kdump: loaded Not tainted 6.6.33+ #6 [ 464.325477] RIP: 0010:__get_user_pages+0x423/0x520 [ 464.325515] Call Trace: [ 464.325520] [ 464.325523] ? __get_user_pages+0x423/0x520 [ 464.325528] ? __warn+0x81/0x130 [ 464.325536] ? __get_user_pages+0x423/0x520 [ 464.325541] ? report_bug+0x171/0x1a0 [ 464.325549] ? handle_bug+0x3c/0x70 [ 464.325554] ? exc_invalid_op+0x17/0x70 [ 464.325558] ? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x1a/0x20 [ 464.325567] ? __get_user_pages+0x423/0x520 [ 464.325575] __gup_longterm_locked+0x212/0x7a0 [ 464.325583] internal_get_user_pages_fast+0xfb/0x190 [ 464.325590] pin_user_pages_fast+0x47/0x60 [ 464.325598] sev_pin_memory+0xca/0x170 [kvm_amd] [ 464.325616] sev_mem_enc_register_region+0x81/0x130 [kvm_amd] Per the analysis done by yangge, when starting the SEV virtual machine, it will call pin_user_pages_fast(..., FOLL_LONGTERM, ...) to pin the memory. But the page is in CMA area, so fast GUP will fail then fallback to the slow path due to the longterm pinnalbe check in try_grab_folio(). The slow path will try to pin the pages then migrate them out of CMA area. But the slow path also uses try_grab_folio() to pin the page, it will also fail due to the same check then the above warning is triggered. In addition, the try_grab_folio() is supposed to be used in fast path and it elevates folio refcount by using add ref unless zero. We are guaranteed to have at least one stable reference in slow path, so the simple atomic add could be used. The performance difference should be trivial, but the misuse may be confusing and misleading. Redefined try_grab_folio() to try_grab_folio_fast(), and try_grab_page() to try_grab_folio(), and use them in the proper paths. This solves both the abuse and the kernel warning. The proper naming makes their usecase more clear and should prevent from abusing in the future. peterx said: : The user will see the pin fails, for gpu-slow it further triggers the WARN : right below that failure (as in the original report): : : folio = try_grab_folio(page, page_increm - 1, : foll_flags); : if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!folio)) { <------------------------ here : /* : * Release the 1st page ref if the : * folio is problematic, fail hard. : */ : gup_put_folio(page_folio(page), 1, : foll_flags); : ret = -EFAULT; : goto out; : } [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/[email protected]/ [[email protected]: fix implicit declaration of function try_grab_folio_fast] Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/CAHbLzkowMSso-4Nufc9hcMehQsK9PNz3OSu-+eniU-2Mm-xjhA@mail.gmail.com

CVE Informations

Related Weaknesses

CWE-ID Weakness Name Source
CWE Other No informations.

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.

 [email protected]

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) 6.6.47

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.7 To (excluding) 6.10

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.10

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.10

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.10

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.10

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.10

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.10

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.10

References