CVE-2024-45003 : Detail

CVE-2024-45003

4.7
/
Medium
0.04%V3
Local
2024-09-04
19h54 +00:00
2024-12-19
09h20 +00:00
CVE.org
NVD
Notifications for a CVE
Stay informed of any changes for a specific CVE.
Notifications manage

CVE Descriptions

vfs: Don't evict inode under the inode lru traversing context

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: vfs: Don't evict inode under the inode lru traversing context The inode reclaiming process(See function prune_icache_sb) collects all reclaimable inodes and mark them with I_FREEING flag at first, at that time, other processes will be stuck if they try getting these inodes (See function find_inode_fast), then the reclaiming process destroy the inodes by function dispose_list(). Some filesystems(eg. ext4 with ea_inode feature, ubifs with xattr) may do inode lookup in the inode evicting callback function, if the inode lookup is operated under the inode lru traversing context, deadlock problems may happen. Case 1: In function ext4_evict_inode(), the ea inode lookup could happen if ea_inode feature is enabled, the lookup process will be stuck under the evicting context like this: 1. File A has inode i_reg and an ea inode i_ea 2. getfattr(A, xattr_buf) // i_ea is added into lru // lru->i_ea 3. Then, following three processes running like this: PA PB echo 2 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches shrink_slab prune_dcache_sb // i_reg is added into lru, lru->i_ea->i_reg prune_icache_sb list_lru_walk_one inode_lru_isolate i_ea->i_state |= I_FREEING // set inode state inode_lru_isolate __iget(i_reg) spin_unlock(&i_reg->i_lock) spin_unlock(lru_lock) rm file A i_reg->nlink = 0 iput(i_reg) // i_reg->nlink is 0, do evict ext4_evict_inode ext4_xattr_delete_inode ext4_xattr_inode_dec_ref_all ext4_xattr_inode_iget ext4_iget(i_ea->i_ino) iget_locked find_inode_fast __wait_on_freeing_inode(i_ea) ----→ AA deadlock dispose_list // cannot be executed by prune_icache_sb wake_up_bit(&i_ea->i_state) Case 2: In deleted inode writing function ubifs_jnl_write_inode(), file deleting process holds BASEHD's wbuf->io_mutex while getting the xattr inode, which could race with inode reclaiming process(The reclaiming process could try locking BASEHD's wbuf->io_mutex in inode evicting function), then an ABBA deadlock problem would happen as following: 1. File A has inode ia and a xattr(with inode ixa), regular file B has inode ib and a xattr. 2. getfattr(A, xattr_buf) // ixa is added into lru // lru->ixa 3. Then, following three processes running like this: PA PB PC echo 2 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches shrink_slab prune_dcache_sb // ib and ia are added into lru, lru->ixa->ib->ia prune_icache_sb list_lru_walk_one inode_lru_isolate ixa->i_state |= I_FREEING // set inode state inode_lru_isolate __iget(ib) spin_unlock(&ib->i_lock) spin_unlock(lru_lock) rm file B ib->nlink = 0 rm file A iput(ia) ubifs_evict_inode(ia) ubifs_jnl_delete_inode(ia) ubifs_jnl_write_inode(ia) make_reservation(BASEHD) // Lock wbuf->io_mutex ubifs_iget(ixa->i_ino) iget_locked find_inode_fast __wait_on_freeing_inode(ixa) | iput(ib) // ib->nlink is 0, do evict | ubifs_evict_inode | ubifs_jnl_delete_inode(ib) ↓ ubifs_jnl_write_inode ABBA deadlock ←-----make_reservation(BASEHD) dispose_list // cannot be executed by prune_icache_sb wake_up_bit(&ixa->i_state) Fix the possible deadlock by using new inode state flag I_LRU_ISOLATING to pin the inode in memory while inode_lru_isolate( ---truncated---

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 4.7 MEDIUM CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/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.

High

successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected.

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) 4.13 To (excluding) 5.4.283

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.5 To (excluding) 5.10.225

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.11 To (excluding) 5.15.166

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.16 To (excluding) 6.1.107

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.2 To (excluding) 6.6.48

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.7 To (excluding) 6.10.7

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.11

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.11

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.11

References