... -> dsa_user_phy_read() -> ds->ops->phy_read() -> lan9303_phy_read() -> chip->ops->phy_read() -> lan9303_mdio_phy_read() -> dev_get_drvdata() But we never stop the phy_state_machine(), so it may continue to run after dsa_switch_shutdown(). Our common pattern in all DSA drivers is to set drvdata to NULL to suppress the remove() method that may come afterwards. But in this case it will result in an NPD. The second problem is that the way in which we set dp->conduit->dsa_ptr = NULL; is concurrent with receive packet processing. dsa_switch_rcv() checks once whether dev->dsa_ptr is NULL, but afterwards, rather than continuing to use that non-NULL value, dev->dsa_ptr is dereferenced again and again without NULL checks: dsa_conduit_find_user() and many other places. In between dereferences, there is no locking to ensure that what was valid once continues to be valid. Both problems have the common aspect that closing the conduit interface solves them. In the first case, dev_close(conduit) triggers the NETDEV_GOING_DOWN event in dsa_user_netdevice_event() which closes user ports as well. dsa_port_disable_rt() calls phylink_stop(), which synchronously stops the phylink state machine, and ds->ops->phy_read() will thus no longer call into the driver after this point. In the second case, dev_close(conduit) should do this, as per Documentation/networking/driver.rst: | Quiescence | ---------- | | After the ndo_stop routine has been called, the hardware must | not receive or transmit any data. All in flight packets must | be aborted. If necessary, poll or wait for completion of | any reset commands. So it should be sufficient to ensure that later, when we zeroize conduit->dsa_ptr, there will be no concurrent dsa_switch_rcv() call on this conduit. The addition of the netif_device_detach() function is to ensure that ioctls, rtnetlinks and ethtool requests on the user ports no longer propagate down to the driver - we're no longer prepared to handle them. The race condition actually did not exist when commit 0650bf52b31f ("net: dsa: be compatible with masters which unregister on shutdown") first introduced dsa_switch_shutdown(). It was created later, when we stopped unregistering the user interfaces from a bad spot, and we just replaced that sequence with a racy zeroization of conduit->dsa_ptr (one which doesn't ensure that the interfaces aren't up).">

CVE-2024-49998 : Detail

CVE-2024-49998

4.7
/
Medium
Memory Corruption
0.04%V3
Local
2024-10-21
18h02 +00:00
2025-01-09
15h35 +00:00
CVE.org
NVD
Notifications for a CVE
Stay informed of any changes for a specific CVE.
Notifications manage

CVE Descriptions

net: dsa: improve shutdown sequence

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net: dsa: improve shutdown sequence Alexander Sverdlin presents 2 problems during shutdown with the lan9303 driver. One is specific to lan9303 and the other just happens to reproduce there. The first problem is that lan9303 is unique among DSA drivers in that it calls dev_get_drvdata() at "arbitrary runtime" (not probe, not shutdown, not remove): phy_state_machine() -> ... -> dsa_user_phy_read() -> ds->ops->phy_read() -> lan9303_phy_read() -> chip->ops->phy_read() -> lan9303_mdio_phy_read() -> dev_get_drvdata() But we never stop the phy_state_machine(), so it may continue to run after dsa_switch_shutdown(). Our common pattern in all DSA drivers is to set drvdata to NULL to suppress the remove() method that may come afterwards. But in this case it will result in an NPD. The second problem is that the way in which we set dp->conduit->dsa_ptr = NULL; is concurrent with receive packet processing. dsa_switch_rcv() checks once whether dev->dsa_ptr is NULL, but afterwards, rather than continuing to use that non-NULL value, dev->dsa_ptr is dereferenced again and again without NULL checks: dsa_conduit_find_user() and many other places. In between dereferences, there is no locking to ensure that what was valid once continues to be valid. Both problems have the common aspect that closing the conduit interface solves them. In the first case, dev_close(conduit) triggers the NETDEV_GOING_DOWN event in dsa_user_netdevice_event() which closes user ports as well. dsa_port_disable_rt() calls phylink_stop(), which synchronously stops the phylink state machine, and ds->ops->phy_read() will thus no longer call into the driver after this point. In the second case, dev_close(conduit) should do this, as per Documentation/networking/driver.rst: | Quiescence | ---------- | | After the ndo_stop routine has been called, the hardware must | not receive or transmit any data. All in flight packets must | be aborted. If necessary, poll or wait for completion of | any reset commands. So it should be sufficient to ensure that later, when we zeroize conduit->dsa_ptr, there will be no concurrent dsa_switch_rcv() call on this conduit. The addition of the netif_device_detach() function is to ensure that ioctls, rtnetlinks and ethtool requests on the user ports no longer propagate down to the driver - we're no longer prepared to handle them. The race condition actually did not exist when commit 0650bf52b31f ("net: dsa: be compatible with masters which unregister on shutdown") first introduced dsa_switch_shutdown(). It was created later, when we stopped unregistering the user interfaces from a bad spot, and we just replaced that sequence with a racy zeroization of conduit->dsa_ptr (one which doesn't ensure that the interfaces aren't up).

CVE Informations

Related Weaknesses

CWE-ID Weakness Name Source
CWE-367 Time-of-check Time-of-use (TOCTOU) Race Condition
The product checks the state of a resource before using that resource, but the resource's state can change between the check and the use in a way that invalidates the results of the check. This can cause the product to perform invalid actions when the resource is in an unexpected state.
CWE-476 NULL Pointer Dereference
The product dereferences a pointer that it expects to be valid but is NULL.

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) 5.15.155 To (excluding) 5.16

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.16.10 To (excluding) 5.17

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.17 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