CVE-2024-26676 : Détail

CVE-2024-26676

5.5
/
Moyen
0.1%V4
Local
2024-04-02
07h01 +00:00
2024-12-19
08h44 +00:00
CVE.org
NVD
Notifications pour un CVE
Restez informé de toutes modifications pour un CVE spécifique.
Gestion des notifications

Descriptions du CVE

af_unix: Call kfree_skb() for dead unix_(sk)->oob_skb in GC.

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: af_unix: Call kfree_skb() for dead unix_(sk)->oob_skb in GC. syzbot reported a warning [0] in __unix_gc() with a repro, which creates a socketpair and sends one socket's fd to itself using the peer. socketpair(AF_UNIX, SOCK_STREAM, 0, [3, 4]) = 0 sendmsg(4, {msg_name=NULL, msg_namelen=0, msg_iov=[{iov_base="\360", iov_len=1}], msg_iovlen=1, msg_control=[{cmsg_len=20, cmsg_level=SOL_SOCKET, cmsg_type=SCM_RIGHTS, cmsg_data=[3]}], msg_controllen=24, msg_flags=0}, MSG_OOB|MSG_PROBE|MSG_DONTWAIT|MSG_ZEROCOPY) = 1 This forms a self-cyclic reference that GC should finally untangle but does not due to lack of MSG_OOB handling, resulting in memory leak. Recently, commit 11498715f266 ("af_unix: Remove io_uring code for GC.") removed io_uring's dead code in GC and revealed the problem. The code was executed at the final stage of GC and unconditionally moved all GC candidates from gc_candidates to gc_inflight_list. That papered over the reported problem by always making the following WARN_ON_ONCE(!list_empty(&gc_candidates)) false. The problem has been there since commit 2aab4b969002 ("af_unix: fix struct pid leaks in OOB support") added full scm support for MSG_OOB while fixing another bug. To fix this problem, we must call kfree_skb() for unix_sk(sk)->oob_skb if the socket still exists in gc_candidates after purging collected skb. Then, we need to set NULL to oob_skb before calling kfree_skb() because it calls last fput() and triggers unix_release_sock(), where we call duplicate kfree_skb(u->oob_skb) if not NULL. Note that the leaked socket remained being linked to a global list, so kmemleak also could not detect it. We need to check /proc/net/protocol to notice the unfreed socket. [0]: WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 2863 at net/unix/garbage.c:345 __unix_gc+0xc74/0xe80 net/unix/garbage.c:345 Modules linked in: CPU: 0 PID: 2863 Comm: kworker/u4:11 Not tainted 6.8.0-rc1-syzkaller-00583-g1701940b1a02 #0 Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS Google 01/25/2024 Workqueue: events_unbound __unix_gc RIP: 0010:__unix_gc+0xc74/0xe80 net/unix/garbage.c:345 Code: 8b 5c 24 50 e9 86 f8 ff ff e8 f8 e4 22 f8 31 d2 48 c7 c6 30 6a 69 89 4c 89 ef e8 97 ef ff ff e9 80 f9 ff ff e8 dd e4 22 f8 90 <0f> 0b 90 e9 7b fd ff ff 48 89 df e8 5c e7 7c f8 e9 d3 f8 ff ff e8 RSP: 0018:ffffc9000b03fba0 EFLAGS: 00010293 RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: ffffc9000b03fc10 RCX: ffffffff816c493e RDX: ffff88802c02d940 RSI: ffffffff896982f3 RDI: ffffc9000b03fb30 RBP: ffffc9000b03fce0 R08: 0000000000000001 R09: fffff52001607f66 R10: 0000000000000003 R11: 0000000000000002 R12: dffffc0000000000 R13: ffffc9000b03fc10 R14: ffffc9000b03fc10 R15: 0000000000000001 FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff8880b9400000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 CR2: 00005559c8677a60 CR3: 000000000d57a000 CR4: 00000000003506f0 DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000 DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400 Call Trace: process_one_work+0x889/0x15e0 kernel/workqueue.c:2633 process_scheduled_works kernel/workqueue.c:2706 [inline] worker_thread+0x8b9/0x12a0 kernel/workqueue.c:2787 kthread+0x2c6/0x3b0 kernel/kthread.c:388 ret_from_fork+0x45/0x80 arch/x86/kernel/process.c:147 ret_from_fork_asm+0x1b/0x30 arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:242

Informations du CVE

Faiblesses connexes

CWE-ID Nom de la faiblesse Source
CWE-401 Missing Release of Memory after Effective Lifetime
The product does not sufficiently track and release allocated memory after it has been used, making the memory unavailable for reallocation and reuse.

Métriques

Métriques Score Gravité CVSS Vecteur 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.

 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) 5.15.103 To (excluding) 5.15.149

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.1.20 To (excluding) 6.1.78

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.3 To (excluding) 6.6.17

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.7 To (excluding) 6.7.5

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.8

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.8

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.8

Références

Les informations affichées sur CVE Find proviennent de plusieurs sources de référence rigoureusement sélectionnées. Les données CVE sont fournies par MITRE Corporation et la National Vulnerability Database (NVD). Le catalogue des vulnérabilités activement exploitées (KEV) provient de la Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), tandis que les scores EPSS sont issus de FIRST.org. Enfin, les données relatives aux faiblesses logicielles (CWE) et aux schémas d'attaque courants (CAPEC) sont maintenues par MITRE Corporation, et les informations sur les configurations logicielles et matérielles (CPE) proviennent du NVD.