CVE-2022-49236 : Détail

CVE-2022-49236

7.8
/
Haute
Memory Corruption
0.05%V3
Local
2025-02-26
01h56 +00:00
2025-02-27
18h02 +00:00
CVE.org
NVD
Notifications pour un CVE
Restez informé de toutes modifications pour un CVE spécifique.
Gestion des notifications

Descriptions du CVE

bpf: Fix UAF due to race between btf_try_get_module and load_module

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: bpf: Fix UAF due to race between btf_try_get_module and load_module While working on code to populate kfunc BTF ID sets for module BTF from its initcall, I noticed that by the time the initcall is invoked, the module BTF can already be seen by userspace (and the BPF verifier). The existing btf_try_get_module calls try_module_get which only fails if mod->state == MODULE_STATE_GOING, i.e. it can increment module reference when module initcall is happening in parallel. Currently, BTF parsing happens from MODULE_STATE_COMING notifier callback. At this point, the module initcalls have not been invoked. The notifier callback parses and prepares the module BTF, allocates an ID, which publishes it to userspace, and then adds it to the btf_modules list allowing the kernel to invoke btf_try_get_module for the BTF. However, at this point, the module has not been fully initialized (i.e. its initcalls have not finished). The code in module.c can still fail and free the module, without caring for other users. However, nothing stops btf_try_get_module from succeeding between the state transition from MODULE_STATE_COMING to MODULE_STATE_LIVE. This leads to a use-after-free issue when BPF program loads successfully in the state transition, load_module's do_init_module call fails and frees the module, and BPF program fd on close calls module_put for the freed module. Future patch has test case to verify we don't regress in this area in future. There are multiple points after prepare_coming_module (in load_module) where failure can occur and module loading can return error. We illustrate and test for the race using the last point where it can practically occur (in module __init function). An illustration of the race: CPU 0 CPU 1 load_module notifier_call(MODULE_STATE_COMING) btf_parse_module btf_alloc_id // Published to userspace list_add(&btf_mod->list, btf_modules) mod->init(...) ... ^ bpf_check | check_pseudo_btf_id | btf_try_get_module | returns true | ... ... | module __init in progress return prog_fd | ... ... V if (ret < 0) free_module(mod) ... close(prog_fd) ... bpf_prog_free_deferred module_put(used_btf.mod) // use-after-free We fix this issue by setting a flag BTF_MODULE_F_LIVE, from the notifier callback when MODULE_STATE_LIVE state is reached for the module, so that we return NULL from btf_try_get_module for modules that are not fully formed. Since try_module_get already checks that module is not in MODULE_STATE_GOING state, and that is the only transition a live module can make before being removed from btf_modules list, this is enough to close the race and prevent the bug. A later selftest patch crafts the race condition artifically to verify that it has been fixed, and that verifier fails to load program (with ENXIO). Lastly, a couple of comments: 1. Even if this race didn't exist, it seems more appropriate to only access resources (ksyms and kfuncs) of a fully formed module which has been initialized completely. 2. This patch was born out of need for synchronization against module initcall for the next patch, so it is needed for correctness even without the aforementioned race condition. The BTF resources initialized by module initcall are set up once and then only looked up, so just waiting until the initcall has finished ensures correct behavior.

Informations du CVE

Faiblesses connexes

CWE-ID Nom de la faiblesse 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.

Métriques

Métriques Score Gravité CVSS Vecteur Source
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 est un modèle de notation qui prédit la probabilité qu'une vulnérabilité soit exploitée.

Score EPSS

Le modèle EPSS produit un score de probabilité compris entre 0 et 1 (0 et 100 %). Plus la note est élevée, plus la probabilité qu'une vulnérabilité soit exploitée est grande.

Percentile EPSS

Le percentile est utilisé pour classer les CVE en fonction de leur score EPSS. Par exemple, une CVE dans le 95e percentile selon son score EPSS est plus susceptible d'être exploitée que 95 % des autres CVE. Ainsi, le percentile sert à comparer le score EPSS d'une CVE par rapport à d'autres CVE.
EPSS First.org

Products Mentioned

Configuraton 0

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.12 To (excluding) 5.15.33

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.16 To (excluding) 5.16.19

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.17 To (excluding) 5.17.2

Références