CVE-2024-45024 : Detail

CVE-2024-45024

5.5
/
Medium
0.03%V4
Local
2024-09-11
15h13 +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

mm/hugetlb: fix hugetlb vs. core-mm PT locking

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm/hugetlb: fix hugetlb vs. core-mm PT locking We recently made GUP's common page table walking code to also walk hugetlb VMAs without most hugetlb special-casing, preparing for the future of having less hugetlb-specific page table walking code in the codebase. Turns out that we missed one page table locking detail: page table locking for hugetlb folios that are not mapped using a single PMD/PUD. Assume we have hugetlb folio that spans multiple PTEs (e.g., 64 KiB hugetlb folios on arm64 with 4 KiB base page size). GUP, as it walks the page tables, will perform a pte_offset_map_lock() to grab the PTE table lock. However, hugetlb that concurrently modifies these page tables would actually grab the mm->page_table_lock: with USE_SPLIT_PTE_PTLOCKS, the locks would differ. Something similar can happen right now with hugetlb folios that span multiple PMDs when USE_SPLIT_PMD_PTLOCKS. This issue can be reproduced [1], for example triggering: [ 3105.936100] ------------[ cut here ]------------ [ 3105.939323] WARNING: CPU: 31 PID: 2732 at mm/gup.c:142 try_grab_folio+0x11c/0x188 [ 3105.944634] Modules linked in: [...] [ 3105.974841] CPU: 31 PID: 2732 Comm: reproducer Not tainted 6.10.0-64.eln141.aarch64 #1 [ 3105.980406] Hardware name: QEMU KVM Virtual Machine, BIOS edk2-20240524-4.fc40 05/24/2024 [ 3105.986185] pstate: 60000005 (nZCv daif -PAN -UAO -TCO -DIT -SSBS BTYPE=--) [ 3105.991108] pc : try_grab_folio+0x11c/0x188 [ 3105.994013] lr : follow_page_pte+0xd8/0x430 [ 3105.996986] sp : ffff80008eafb8f0 [ 3105.999346] x29: ffff80008eafb900 x28: ffffffe8d481f380 x27: 00f80001207cff43 [ 3106.004414] x26: 0000000000000001 x25: 0000000000000000 x24: ffff80008eafba48 [ 3106.009520] x23: 0000ffff9372f000 x22: ffff7a54459e2000 x21: ffff7a546c1aa978 [ 3106.014529] x20: ffffffe8d481f3c0 x19: 0000000000610041 x18: 0000000000000001 [ 3106.019506] x17: 0000000000000001 x16: ffffffffffffffff x15: 0000000000000000 [ 3106.024494] x14: ffffb85477fdfe08 x13: 0000ffff9372ffff x12: 0000000000000000 [ 3106.029469] x11: 1fffef4a88a96be1 x10: ffff7a54454b5f0c x9 : ffffb854771b12f0 [ 3106.034324] x8 : 0008000000000000 x7 : ffff7a546c1aa980 x6 : 0008000000000080 [ 3106.038902] x5 : 00000000001207cf x4 : 0000ffff9372f000 x3 : ffffffe8d481f000 [ 3106.043420] x2 : 0000000000610041 x1 : 0000000000000001 x0 : 0000000000000000 [ 3106.047957] Call trace: [ 3106.049522] try_grab_folio+0x11c/0x188 [ 3106.051996] follow_pmd_mask.constprop.0.isra.0+0x150/0x2e0 [ 3106.055527] follow_page_mask+0x1a0/0x2b8 [ 3106.058118] __get_user_pages+0xf0/0x348 [ 3106.060647] faultin_page_range+0xb0/0x360 [ 3106.063651] do_madvise+0x340/0x598 Let's make huge_pte_lockptr() effectively use the same PT locks as any core-mm page table walker would. Add ptep_lockptr() to obtain the PTE page table lock using a pte pointer -- unfortunately we cannot convert pte_lockptr() because virt_to_page() doesn't work with kmap'ed page tables we can have with CONFIG_HIGHPTE. Handle CONFIG_PGTABLE_LEVELS correctly by checking in reverse order, such that when e.g., CONFIG_PGTABLE_LEVELS==2 with PGDIR_SIZE==P4D_SIZE==PUD_SIZE==PMD_SIZE will work as expected. Document why that works. There is one ugly case: powerpc 8xx, whereby we have an 8 MiB hugetlb folio being mapped using two PTE page tables. While hugetlb wants to take the PMD table lock, core-mm would grab the PTE table lock of one of both PTE page tables. In such corner cases, we have to make sure that both locks match, which is (fortunately!) currently guaranteed for 8xx as it does not support SMP and consequently doesn't use split PT locks. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/1bbfcc7f-f222-45a5-ac44-c5a1381c596d@redhat.com/

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 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) 6.10 To (excluding) 6.10.7

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.11

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.11

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.11

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.