CVE-2024-47706 Detail

CVE-2024-47706

Score / Severity

5.5

Medium

CVE Descriptions

block, bfq: fix possible UAF for bfqq->bic with merge chain

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: block, bfq: fix possible UAF for bfqq->bic with merge chain 1) initial state, three tasks: Process 1 Process 2 Process 3 (BIC1) (BIC2) (BIC3) | Λ | Λ | Λ | | | | | | V | V | V | bfqq1 bfqq2 bfqq3 process ref: 1 1 1 2) bfqq1 merged to bfqq2: Process 1 Process 2 Process 3 (BIC1) (BIC2) (BIC3) | | | Λ \--------------\| | | V V | bfqq1--------->bfqq2 bfqq3 process ref: 0 2 1 3) bfqq2 merged to bfqq3: Process 1 Process 2 Process 3 (BIC1) (BIC2) (BIC3) here -> Λ | | \--------------\ \-------------\| V V bfqq1--------->bfqq2---------->bfqq3 process ref: 0 1 3 In this case, IO from Process 1 will get bfqq2 from BIC1 first, and then get bfqq3 through merge chain, and finially handle IO by bfqq3. Howerver, current code will think bfqq2 is owned by BIC1, like initial state, and set bfqq2->bic to BIC1. bfq_insert_request -> by Process 1 bfqq = bfq_init_rq(rq) bfqq = bfq_get_bfqq_handle_split bfqq = bic_to_bfqq -> get bfqq2 from BIC1 bfqq->ref++ rq->elv.priv[0] = bic rq->elv.priv[1] = bfqq if (bfqq_process_refs(bfqq) == 1) bfqq->bic = bic -> record BIC1 to bfqq2 __bfq_insert_request new_bfqq = bfq_setup_cooperator -> get bfqq3 from bfqq2->new_bfqq bfqq_request_freed(bfqq) new_bfqq->ref++ rq->elv.priv[1] = new_bfqq -> handle IO by bfqq3 Fix the problem by checking bfqq is from merge chain fist. And this might fix a following problem reported by our syzkaller(unreproducible): ================================================================== BUG: KASAN: slab-use-after-free in bfq_do_early_stable_merge block/bfq-iosched.c:5692 [inline] BUG: KASAN: slab-use-after-free in bfq_do_or_sched_stable_merge block/bfq-iosched.c:5805 [inline] BUG: KASAN: slab-use-after-free in bfq_get_queue+0x25b0/0x2610 block/bfq-iosched.c:5889 Write of size 1 at addr ffff888123839eb8 by task kworker/0:1H/18595 CPU: 0 PID: 18595 Comm: kworker/0:1H Tainted: G L 6.6.0-07439-gba2303cacfda #6 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS rel-1.14.0-0-g155821a1990b-prebuilt.qemu.org 04/01/2014 Workqueue: kblockd blk_mq_requeue_work Call Trace: __dump_stack lib/dump_stack.c:88 [inline] dump_stack_lvl+0x91/0xf0 lib/dump_stack.c:106 print_address_description mm/kasan/report.c:364 [inline] print_report+0x10d/0x610 mm/kasan/report.c:475 kasan_report+0x8e/0xc0 mm/kasan/report.c:588 bfq_do_early_stable_merge block/bfq-iosched.c:5692 [inline] bfq_do_or_sched_stable_merge block/bfq-iosched.c:5805 [inline] bfq_get_queue+0x25b0/0x2610 block/bfq-iosched.c:5889 bfq_get_bfqq_handle_split+0x169/0x5d0 block/bfq-iosched.c:6757 bfq_init_rq block/bfq-iosched.c:6876 [inline] bfq_insert_request block/bfq-iosched.c:6254 [inline] bfq_insert_requests+0x1112/0x5cf0 block/bfq-iosched.c:6304 blk_mq_insert_request+0x290/0x8d0 block/blk-mq.c:2593 blk_mq_requeue_work+0x6bc/0xa70 block/blk-mq.c:1502 process_one_work kernel/workqueue.c:2627 [inline] process_scheduled_works+0x432/0x13f0 kernel/workqueue.c:2700 worker_thread+0x6f2/0x1160 kernel/workqueue.c:2781 kthread+0x33c/0x440 kernel/kthread.c:388 ret_from_fork+0x4d/0x80 arch/x86/kernel/process.c:147 ret_from_fork_asm+0x1b/0x30 arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:305 Allocated by task 20776: kasan_save_stack+0x20/0x40 mm/kasan/common.c:45 kasan_set_track+0x25/0x30 mm/kasan/common.c:52 __kasan_slab_alloc+0x87/0x90 mm/kasan/common.c:328 kasan_slab_alloc include/linux/kasan.h:188 [inline] slab_post_alloc_hook mm/slab.h:763 [inline] slab_alloc_node mm/slub.c:3458 [inline] kmem_cache_alloc_node+0x1a4/0x6f0 mm/slub.c:3503 ioc_create_icq block/blk-ioc.c:370 [inline] ---truncated---

CVE Informations

Related Weaknesses

CWE-ID	Weakness Name	Source
CWE-416	Use After Free The product reuses or references memory after it has been freed. At some point afterward, the memory may be allocated again and saved in another pointer, while the original pointer references a location somewhere within the new allocation. Any operations using the original pointer are no longer valid because the memory "belongs" to the code that operates on the new pointer.

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 More informations 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