sk to the bpf_sk_storage_get_tracing kernel helper which does check for null before using it. """ The commit 83fccfc3940c ("inet: fix potential deadlock in reqsk_queue_unlink()") added timer_pending() in reqsk_queue_unlink() not to call del_timer_sync() from reqsk_timer_handler(), but it introduced a small race window. Before the timer is called, expire_timers() calls detach_timer(timer, true) to clear timer->entry.pprev and marks it as not pending. If reqsk_queue_unlink() checks timer_pending() just after expire_timers() calls detach_timer(), TCP will miss del_timer_sync(); the reqsk timer will continue running and send multiple SYN+ACKs until it expires. The reported UAF could happen if req->sk is close()d earlier than the timer expiration, which is 63s by default. The scenario would be 1. inet_csk_complete_hashdance() calls inet_csk_reqsk_queue_drop(), but del_timer_sync() is missed 2. reqsk timer is executed and scheduled again 3. req->sk is accept()ed and reqsk_put() decrements rsk_refcnt, but reqsk timer still has another one, and inet_csk_accept() does not clear req->sk for non-TFO sockets 4. sk is close()d 5. reqsk timer is executed again, and BPF touches req->sk Let's not use timer_pending() by passing the caller context to __inet_csk_reqsk_queue_drop(). Note that reqsk timer is pinned, so the issue does not happen in most use cases. [1] [0] BUG: KFENCE: use-after-free read in bpf_sk_storage_get_tracing+0x2e/0x1b0 Use-after-free read at 0x00000000a891fb3a (in kfence-#1): bpf_sk_storage_get_tracing+0x2e/0x1b0 bpf_prog_5ea3e95db6da0438_tcp_retransmit_synack+0x1d20/0x1dda bpf_trace_run2+0x4c/0xc0 tcp_rtx_synack+0xf9/0x100 reqsk_timer_handler+0xda/0x3d0 run_timer_softirq+0x292/0x8a0 irq_exit_rcu+0xf5/0x320 sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x6d/0x80 asm_sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x16/0x20 intel_idle_irq+0x5a/0xa0 cpuidle_enter_state+0x94/0x273 cpu_startup_entry+0x15e/0x260 start_secondary+0x8a/0x90 secondary_startup_64_no_verify+0xfa/0xfb kfence-#1: 0x00000000a72cc7b6-0x00000000d97616d9, size=2376, cache=TCPv6 allocated by task 0 on cpu 9 at 260507.901592s: sk_prot_alloc+0x35/0x140 sk_clone_lock+0x1f/0x3f0 inet_csk_clone_lock+0x15/0x160 tcp_create_openreq_child+0x1f/0x410 tcp_v6_syn_recv_sock+0x1da/0x700 tcp_check_req+0x1fb/0x510 tcp_v6_rcv+0x98b/0x1420 ipv6_list_rcv+0x2258/0x26e0 napi_complete_done+0x5b1/0x2990 mlx5e_napi_poll+0x2ae/0x8d0 net_rx_action+0x13e/0x590 irq_exit_rcu+0xf5/0x320 common_interrupt+0x80/0x90 asm_common_interrupt+0x22/0x40 cpuidle_enter_state+0xfb/0x273 cpu_startup_entry+0x15e/0x260 start_secondary+0x8a/0x90 secondary_startup_64_no_verify+0xfa/0xfb freed by task 0 on cpu 9 at 260507.927527s: rcu_core_si+0x4ff/0xf10 irq_exit_rcu+0xf5/0x320 sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x6d/0x80 asm_sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x16/0x20 cpuidle_enter_state+0xfb/0x273 cpu_startup_entry+0x15e/0x260 start_secondary+0x8a/0x90 secondary_startup_64_no_verify+0xfa/0xfb">

CVE-2024-50154 : Detail

CVE-2024-50154

7.8
/
High
Memory Corruption
0.04%V3
Local
2024-11-07
09h31 +00:00
2024-12-19
09h34 +00:00
CVE.org
NVD
Notifications for a CVE
Stay informed of any changes for a specific CVE.
Notifications manage

CVE Descriptions

tcp/dccp: Don't use timer_pending() in reqsk_queue_unlink().

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: tcp/dccp: Don't use timer_pending() in reqsk_queue_unlink(). Martin KaFai Lau reported use-after-free [0] in reqsk_timer_handler(). """ We are seeing a use-after-free from a bpf prog attached to trace_tcp_retransmit_synack. The program passes the req->sk to the bpf_sk_storage_get_tracing kernel helper which does check for null before using it. """ The commit 83fccfc3940c ("inet: fix potential deadlock in reqsk_queue_unlink()") added timer_pending() in reqsk_queue_unlink() not to call del_timer_sync() from reqsk_timer_handler(), but it introduced a small race window. Before the timer is called, expire_timers() calls detach_timer(timer, true) to clear timer->entry.pprev and marks it as not pending. If reqsk_queue_unlink() checks timer_pending() just after expire_timers() calls detach_timer(), TCP will miss del_timer_sync(); the reqsk timer will continue running and send multiple SYN+ACKs until it expires. The reported UAF could happen if req->sk is close()d earlier than the timer expiration, which is 63s by default. The scenario would be 1. inet_csk_complete_hashdance() calls inet_csk_reqsk_queue_drop(), but del_timer_sync() is missed 2. reqsk timer is executed and scheduled again 3. req->sk is accept()ed and reqsk_put() decrements rsk_refcnt, but reqsk timer still has another one, and inet_csk_accept() does not clear req->sk for non-TFO sockets 4. sk is close()d 5. reqsk timer is executed again, and BPF touches req->sk Let's not use timer_pending() by passing the caller context to __inet_csk_reqsk_queue_drop(). Note that reqsk timer is pinned, so the issue does not happen in most use cases. [1] [0] BUG: KFENCE: use-after-free read in bpf_sk_storage_get_tracing+0x2e/0x1b0 Use-after-free read at 0x00000000a891fb3a (in kfence-#1): bpf_sk_storage_get_tracing+0x2e/0x1b0 bpf_prog_5ea3e95db6da0438_tcp_retransmit_synack+0x1d20/0x1dda bpf_trace_run2+0x4c/0xc0 tcp_rtx_synack+0xf9/0x100 reqsk_timer_handler+0xda/0x3d0 run_timer_softirq+0x292/0x8a0 irq_exit_rcu+0xf5/0x320 sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x6d/0x80 asm_sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x16/0x20 intel_idle_irq+0x5a/0xa0 cpuidle_enter_state+0x94/0x273 cpu_startup_entry+0x15e/0x260 start_secondary+0x8a/0x90 secondary_startup_64_no_verify+0xfa/0xfb kfence-#1: 0x00000000a72cc7b6-0x00000000d97616d9, size=2376, cache=TCPv6 allocated by task 0 on cpu 9 at 260507.901592s: sk_prot_alloc+0x35/0x140 sk_clone_lock+0x1f/0x3f0 inet_csk_clone_lock+0x15/0x160 tcp_create_openreq_child+0x1f/0x410 tcp_v6_syn_recv_sock+0x1da/0x700 tcp_check_req+0x1fb/0x510 tcp_v6_rcv+0x98b/0x1420 ipv6_list_rcv+0x2258/0x26e0 napi_complete_done+0x5b1/0x2990 mlx5e_napi_poll+0x2ae/0x8d0 net_rx_action+0x13e/0x590 irq_exit_rcu+0xf5/0x320 common_interrupt+0x80/0x90 asm_common_interrupt+0x22/0x40 cpuidle_enter_state+0xfb/0x273 cpu_startup_entry+0x15e/0x260 start_secondary+0x8a/0x90 secondary_startup_64_no_verify+0xfa/0xfb freed by task 0 on cpu 9 at 260507.927527s: rcu_core_si+0x4ff/0xf10 irq_exit_rcu+0xf5/0x320 sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x6d/0x80 asm_sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x16/0x20 cpuidle_enter_state+0xfb/0x273 cpu_startup_entry+0x15e/0x260 start_secondary+0x8a/0x90 secondary_startup_64_no_verify+0xfa/0xfb

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 7 HIGH CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/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.

High

There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server.

Integrity Impact

This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information.

High

There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to 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]
V3.1 7.8 HIGH CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/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.

High

There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server.

Integrity Impact

This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information.

High

There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to 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.

 134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0

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) 4.1.11 To (excluding) 4.2

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 4.2 To (excluding) 5.15.170

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.16 To (excluding) 6.1.115

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.2 To (excluding) 6.6.59

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.7 To (excluding) 6.11.6

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.12

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.12

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.12

References