CVE-2024-46789 : Detail

CVE-2024-46789

5.5
/
Medium
0.03%V4
Local
2024-09-18
07h12 +00:00
2024-12-19
09h23 +00:00
CVE.org
NVD
Notifications for a CVE
Stay informed of any changes for a specific CVE.
Notifications manage

CVE Descriptions

mm/slub: add check for s->flags in the alloc_tagging_slab_free_hook

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm/slub: add check for s->flags in the alloc_tagging_slab_free_hook When enable CONFIG_MEMCG & CONFIG_KFENCE & CONFIG_KMEMLEAK, the following warning always occurs,This is because the following call stack occurred: mem_pool_alloc kmem_cache_alloc_noprof slab_alloc_node kfence_alloc Once the kfence allocation is successful,slab->obj_exts will not be empty, because it has already been assigned a value in kfence_init_pool. Since in the prepare_slab_obj_exts_hook function,we perform a check for s->flags & (SLAB_NO_OBJ_EXT | SLAB_NOLEAKTRACE),the alloc_tag_add function will not be called as a result.Therefore,ref->ct remains NULL. However,when we call mem_pool_free,since obj_ext is not empty, it eventually leads to the alloc_tag_sub scenario being invoked. This is where the warning occurs. So we should add corresponding checks in the alloc_tagging_slab_free_hook. For __GFP_NO_OBJ_EXT case,I didn't see the specific case where it's using kfence,so I won't add the corresponding check in alloc_tagging_slab_free_hook for now. [ 3.734349] ------------[ cut here ]------------ [ 3.734807] alloc_tag was not set [ 3.735129] WARNING: CPU: 4 PID: 40 at ./include/linux/alloc_tag.h:130 kmem_cache_free+0x444/0x574 [ 3.735866] Modules linked in: autofs4 [ 3.736211] CPU: 4 UID: 0 PID: 40 Comm: ksoftirqd/4 Tainted: G W 6.11.0-rc3-dirty #1 [ 3.736969] Tainted: [W]=WARN [ 3.737258] Hardware name: QEMU KVM Virtual Machine, BIOS unknown 2/2/2022 [ 3.737875] pstate: 60400005 (nZCv daif +PAN -UAO -TCO -DIT -SSBS BTYPE=--) [ 3.738501] pc : kmem_cache_free+0x444/0x574 [ 3.738951] lr : kmem_cache_free+0x444/0x574 [ 3.739361] sp : ffff80008357bb60 [ 3.739693] x29: ffff80008357bb70 x28: 0000000000000000 x27: 0000000000000000 [ 3.740338] x26: ffff80008207f000 x25: ffff000b2eb2fd60 x24: ffff0000c0005700 [ 3.740982] x23: ffff8000804229e4 x22: ffff800082080000 x21: ffff800081756000 [ 3.741630] x20: fffffd7ff8253360 x19: 00000000000000a8 x18: ffffffffffffffff [ 3.742274] x17: ffff800ab327f000 x16: ffff800083398000 x15: ffff800081756df0 [ 3.742919] x14: 0000000000000000 x13: 205d344320202020 x12: 5b5d373038343337 [ 3.743560] x11: ffff80008357b650 x10: 000000000000005d x9 : 00000000ffffffd0 [ 3.744231] x8 : 7f7f7f7f7f7f7f7f x7 : ffff80008237bad0 x6 : c0000000ffff7fff [ 3.744907] x5 : ffff80008237ba78 x4 : ffff8000820bbad0 x3 : 0000000000000001 [ 3.745580] x2 : 68d66547c09f7800 x1 : 68d66547c09f7800 x0 : 0000000000000000 [ 3.746255] Call trace: [ 3.746530] kmem_cache_free+0x444/0x574 [ 3.746931] mem_pool_free+0x44/0xf4 [ 3.747306] free_object_rcu+0xc8/0xdc [ 3.747693] rcu_do_batch+0x234/0x8a4 [ 3.748075] rcu_core+0x230/0x3e4 [ 3.748424] rcu_core_si+0x14/0x1c [ 3.748780] handle_softirqs+0x134/0x378 [ 3.749189] run_ksoftirqd+0x70/0x9c [ 3.749560] smpboot_thread_fn+0x148/0x22c [ 3.749978] kthread+0x10c/0x118 [ 3.750323] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20 [ 3.750696] ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]---

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.

 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) 6.10.10

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.11

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.11

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.11

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.