CVE-2024-49946 : Detail

CVE-2024-49946

5.5
/
Medium
0.04%V3
Local
2024-10-21
18h02 +00:00
2024-12-19
09h29 +00:00
CVE.org
NVD
Notifications for a CVE
Stay informed of any changes for a specific CVE.
Notifications manage

CVE Descriptions

ppp: do not assume bh is held in ppp_channel_bridge_input()

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ppp: do not assume bh is held in ppp_channel_bridge_input() Networking receive path is usually handled from BH handler. However, some protocols need to acquire the socket lock, and packets might be stored in the socket backlog is the socket was owned by a user process. In this case, release_sock(), __release_sock(), and sk_backlog_rcv() might call the sk->sk_backlog_rcv() handler in process context. sybot caught ppp was not considering this case in ppp_channel_bridge_input() : WARNING: inconsistent lock state 6.11.0-rc7-syzkaller-g5f5673607153 #0 Not tainted -------------------------------- inconsistent {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} -> {IN-SOFTIRQ-W} usage. ksoftirqd/1/24 [HC0[0]:SC1[1]:HE1:SE0] takes: ffff0000db7f11e0 (&pch->downl){+.?.}-{2:2}, at: spin_lock include/linux/spinlock.h:351 [inline] ffff0000db7f11e0 (&pch->downl){+.?.}-{2:2}, at: ppp_channel_bridge_input drivers/net/ppp/ppp_generic.c:2272 [inline] ffff0000db7f11e0 (&pch->downl){+.?.}-{2:2}, at: ppp_input+0x16c/0x854 drivers/net/ppp/ppp_generic.c:2304 {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} state was registered at: lock_acquire+0x240/0x728 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5759 __raw_spin_lock include/linux/spinlock_api_smp.h:133 [inline] _raw_spin_lock+0x48/0x60 kernel/locking/spinlock.c:154 spin_lock include/linux/spinlock.h:351 [inline] ppp_channel_bridge_input drivers/net/ppp/ppp_generic.c:2272 [inline] ppp_input+0x16c/0x854 drivers/net/ppp/ppp_generic.c:2304 pppoe_rcv_core+0xfc/0x314 drivers/net/ppp/pppoe.c:379 sk_backlog_rcv include/net/sock.h:1111 [inline] __release_sock+0x1a8/0x3d8 net/core/sock.c:3004 release_sock+0x68/0x1b8 net/core/sock.c:3558 pppoe_sendmsg+0xc8/0x5d8 drivers/net/ppp/pppoe.c:903 sock_sendmsg_nosec net/socket.c:730 [inline] __sock_sendmsg net/socket.c:745 [inline] __sys_sendto+0x374/0x4f4 net/socket.c:2204 __do_sys_sendto net/socket.c:2216 [inline] __se_sys_sendto net/socket.c:2212 [inline] __arm64_sys_sendto+0xd8/0xf8 net/socket.c:2212 __invoke_syscall arch/arm64/kernel/syscall.c:35 [inline] invoke_syscall+0x98/0x2b8 arch/arm64/kernel/syscall.c:49 el0_svc_common+0x130/0x23c arch/arm64/kernel/syscall.c:132 do_el0_svc+0x48/0x58 arch/arm64/kernel/syscall.c:151 el0_svc+0x54/0x168 arch/arm64/kernel/entry-common.c:712 el0t_64_sync_handler+0x84/0xfc arch/arm64/kernel/entry-common.c:730 el0t_64_sync+0x190/0x194 arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S:598 irq event stamp: 282914 hardirqs last enabled at (282914): [] __raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore include/linux/spinlock_api_smp.h:151 [inline] hardirqs last enabled at (282914): [] _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x38/0x98 kernel/locking/spinlock.c:194 hardirqs last disabled at (282913): [] __raw_spin_lock_irqsave include/linux/spinlock_api_smp.h:108 [inline] hardirqs last disabled at (282913): [] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x2c/0x7c kernel/locking/spinlock.c:162 softirqs last enabled at (282904): [] softirq_handle_end kernel/softirq.c:400 [inline] softirqs last enabled at (282904): [] handle_softirqs+0xa3c/0xbfc kernel/softirq.c:582 softirqs last disabled at (282909): [] run_ksoftirqd+0x70/0x158 kernel/softirq.c:928 other info that might help us debug this: Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 ---- lock(&pch->downl); lock(&pch->downl); *** DEADLOCK *** 1 lock held by ksoftirqd/1/24: #0: ffff80008f74dfa0 (rcu_read_lock){....}-{1:2}, at: rcu_lock_acquire+0x10/0x4c include/linux/rcupdate.h:325 stack backtrace: CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 24 Comm: ksoftirqd/1 Not tainted 6.11.0-rc7-syzkaller-g5f5673607153 #0 Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS Google 08/06/2024 Call trace: dump_backtrace+0x1b8/0x1e4 arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c:319 show_stack+0x2c/0x3c arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c:326 __dump_sta ---truncated---

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) 5.11 To (excluding) 5.15.168

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.16 To (excluding) 6.1.113

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.2 To (excluding) 6.6.55

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.7 To (excluding) 6.10.14

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.11 To (excluding) 6.11.3

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.12

References