CVE-2024-43834 : Detail

CVE-2024-43834

5.5
/
Medium
0.04%V3
Local
2024-08-17
09h21 +00:00
2024-12-19
09h16 +00:00
CVE.org
NVD
Notifications for a CVE
Stay informed of any changes for a specific CVE.
Notifications manage

CVE Descriptions

xdp: fix invalid wait context of page_pool_destroy()

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: xdp: fix invalid wait context of page_pool_destroy() If the driver uses a page pool, it creates a page pool with page_pool_create(). The reference count of page pool is 1 as default. A page pool will be destroyed only when a reference count reaches 0. page_pool_destroy() is used to destroy page pool, it decreases a reference count. When a page pool is destroyed, ->disconnect() is called, which is mem_allocator_disconnect(). This function internally acquires mutex_lock(). If the driver uses XDP, it registers a memory model with xdp_rxq_info_reg_mem_model(). The xdp_rxq_info_reg_mem_model() internally increases a page pool reference count if a memory model is a page pool. Now the reference count is 2. To destroy a page pool, the driver should call both page_pool_destroy() and xdp_unreg_mem_model(). The xdp_unreg_mem_model() internally calls page_pool_destroy(). Only page_pool_destroy() decreases a reference count. If a driver calls page_pool_destroy() then xdp_unreg_mem_model(), we will face an invalid wait context warning. Because xdp_unreg_mem_model() calls page_pool_destroy() with rcu_read_lock(). The page_pool_destroy() internally acquires mutex_lock(). Splat looks like: ============================= [ BUG: Invalid wait context ] 6.10.0-rc6+ #4 Tainted: G W ----------------------------- ethtool/1806 is trying to lock: ffffffff90387b90 (mem_id_lock){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: mem_allocator_disconnect+0x73/0x150 other info that might help us debug this: context-{5:5} 3 locks held by ethtool/1806: stack backtrace: CPU: 0 PID: 1806 Comm: ethtool Tainted: G W 6.10.0-rc6+ #4 f916f41f172891c800f2fed Hardware name: ASUS System Product Name/PRIME Z690-P D4, BIOS 0603 11/01/2021 Call Trace: dump_stack_lvl+0x7e/0xc0 __lock_acquire+0x1681/0x4de0 ? _printk+0x64/0xe0 ? __pfx_mark_lock.part.0+0x10/0x10 ? __pfx___lock_acquire+0x10/0x10 lock_acquire+0x1b3/0x580 ? mem_allocator_disconnect+0x73/0x150 ? __wake_up_klogd.part.0+0x16/0xc0 ? __pfx_lock_acquire+0x10/0x10 ? dump_stack_lvl+0x91/0xc0 __mutex_lock+0x15c/0x1690 ? mem_allocator_disconnect+0x73/0x150 ? __pfx_prb_read_valid+0x10/0x10 ? mem_allocator_disconnect+0x73/0x150 ? __pfx_llist_add_batch+0x10/0x10 ? console_unlock+0x193/0x1b0 ? lockdep_hardirqs_on+0xbe/0x140 ? __pfx___mutex_lock+0x10/0x10 ? tick_nohz_tick_stopped+0x16/0x90 ? __irq_work_queue_local+0x1e5/0x330 ? irq_work_queue+0x39/0x50 ? __wake_up_klogd.part.0+0x79/0xc0 ? mem_allocator_disconnect+0x73/0x150 mem_allocator_disconnect+0x73/0x150 ? __pfx_mem_allocator_disconnect+0x10/0x10 ? mark_held_locks+0xa5/0xf0 ? rcu_is_watching+0x11/0xb0 page_pool_release+0x36e/0x6d0 page_pool_destroy+0xd7/0x440 xdp_unreg_mem_model+0x1a7/0x2a0 ? __pfx_xdp_unreg_mem_model+0x10/0x10 ? kfree+0x125/0x370 ? bnxt_free_ring.isra.0+0x2eb/0x500 ? bnxt_free_mem+0x5ac/0x2500 xdp_rxq_info_unreg+0x4a/0xd0 bnxt_free_mem+0x1356/0x2500 bnxt_close_nic+0xf0/0x3b0 ? __pfx_bnxt_close_nic+0x10/0x10 ? ethnl_parse_bit+0x2c6/0x6d0 ? __pfx___nla_validate_parse+0x10/0x10 ? __pfx_ethnl_parse_bit+0x10/0x10 bnxt_set_features+0x2a8/0x3e0 __netdev_update_features+0x4dc/0x1370 ? ethnl_parse_bitset+0x4ff/0x750 ? __pfx_ethnl_parse_bitset+0x10/0x10 ? __pfx___netdev_update_features+0x10/0x10 ? mark_held_locks+0xa5/0xf0 ? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x42/0x70 ? __pm_runtime_resume+0x7d/0x110 ethnl_set_features+0x32d/0xa20 To fix this problem, it uses rhashtable_lookup_fast() instead of rhashtable_lookup() with rcu_read_lock(). Using xa without rcu_read_lock() here is safe. xa is freed by __xdp_mem_allocator_rcu_free() and this is called by call_rcu() of mem_xa_remove(). The mem_xa_remove() is called by page_pool_destroy() if a reference count reaches 0. The xa is already protected by the reference count mechanism well in the control plane. So removing rcu_read_lock() for page_pool_destroy() is safe.

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) 5.3.18 To (excluding) 5.4

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.4.5 To (excluding) 5.5

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.5 To (excluding) 6.1.103

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.2 To (excluding) 6.6.44

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.7 To (excluding) 6.10.3

References