CVE-2024-50079 : Detail

CVE-2024-50079

5.5
/
Medium
0.04%V3
Local
2024-10-29
00h50 +00:00
2024-12-19
09h32 +00:00
CVE.org
NVD
Notifications for a CVE
Stay informed of any changes for a specific CVE.
Notifications manage

CVE Descriptions

io_uring/sqpoll: ensure task state is TASK_RUNNING when running task_work

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: io_uring/sqpoll: ensure task state is TASK_RUNNING when running task_work When the sqpoll is exiting and cancels pending work items, it may need to run task_work. If this happens from within io_uring_cancel_generic(), then it may be under waiting for the io_uring_task waitqueue. This results in the below splat from the scheduler, as the ring mutex may be attempted grabbed while in a TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE state. Ensure that the task state is set appropriately for that, just like what is done for the other cases in io_run_task_work(). do not call blocking ops when !TASK_RUNNING; state=1 set at [<0000000029387fd2>] prepare_to_wait+0x88/0x2fc WARNING: CPU: 6 PID: 59939 at kernel/sched/core.c:8561 __might_sleep+0xf4/0x140 Modules linked in: CPU: 6 UID: 0 PID: 59939 Comm: iou-sqp-59938 Not tainted 6.12.0-rc3-00113-g8d020023b155 #7456 Hardware name: linux,dummy-virt (DT) pstate: 61400005 (nZCv daif +PAN -UAO -TCO +DIT -SSBS BTYPE=--) pc : __might_sleep+0xf4/0x140 lr : __might_sleep+0xf4/0x140 sp : ffff80008c5e7830 x29: ffff80008c5e7830 x28: ffff0000d93088c0 x27: ffff60001c2d7230 x26: dfff800000000000 x25: ffff0000e16b9180 x24: ffff80008c5e7a50 x23: 1ffff000118bcf4a x22: ffff0000e16b9180 x21: ffff0000e16b9180 x20: 000000000000011b x19: ffff80008310fac0 x18: 1ffff000118bcd90 x17: 30303c5b20746120 x16: 74657320313d6574 x15: 0720072007200720 x14: 0720072007200720 x13: 0720072007200720 x12: ffff600036c64f0b x11: 1fffe00036c64f0a x10: ffff600036c64f0a x9 : dfff800000000000 x8 : 00009fffc939b0f6 x7 : ffff0001b6327853 x6 : 0000000000000001 x5 : ffff0001b6327850 x4 : ffff600036c64f0b x3 : ffff8000803c35bc x2 : 0000000000000000 x1 : 0000000000000000 x0 : ffff0000e16b9180 Call trace: __might_sleep+0xf4/0x140 mutex_lock+0x84/0x124 io_handle_tw_list+0xf4/0x260 tctx_task_work_run+0x94/0x340 io_run_task_work+0x1ec/0x3c0 io_uring_cancel_generic+0x364/0x524 io_sq_thread+0x820/0x124c ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20

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) 6.9 To (excluding) 6.11.5

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.12

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.12

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.12

References