CVE-2024-53052 : Détail

CVE-2024-53052

4.4
/
Moyen
0.04%V3
Local
2024-11-19
17h19 +00:00
2025-03-06
15h37 +00:00
CVE.org
NVD
Notifications pour un CVE
Restez informé de toutes modifications pour un CVE spécifique.
Gestion des notifications

Descriptions du CVE

io_uring/rw: fix missing NOWAIT check for O_DIRECT start write

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: io_uring/rw: fix missing NOWAIT check for O_DIRECT start write When io_uring starts a write, it'll call kiocb_start_write() to bump the super block rwsem, preventing any freezes from happening while that write is in-flight. The freeze side will grab that rwsem for writing, excluding any new writers from happening and waiting for existing writes to finish. But io_uring unconditionally uses kiocb_start_write(), which will block if someone is currently attempting to freeze the mount point. This causes a deadlock where freeze is waiting for previous writes to complete, but the previous writes cannot complete, as the task that is supposed to complete them is blocked waiting on starting a new write. This results in the following stuck trace showing that dependency with the write blocked starting a new write: task:fio state:D stack:0 pid:886 tgid:886 ppid:876 Call trace: __switch_to+0x1d8/0x348 __schedule+0x8e8/0x2248 schedule+0x110/0x3f0 percpu_rwsem_wait+0x1e8/0x3f8 __percpu_down_read+0xe8/0x500 io_write+0xbb8/0xff8 io_issue_sqe+0x10c/0x1020 io_submit_sqes+0x614/0x2110 __arm64_sys_io_uring_enter+0x524/0x1038 invoke_syscall+0x74/0x268 el0_svc_common.constprop.0+0x160/0x238 do_el0_svc+0x44/0x60 el0_svc+0x44/0xb0 el0t_64_sync_handler+0x118/0x128 el0t_64_sync+0x168/0x170 INFO: task fsfreeze:7364 blocked for more than 15 seconds. Not tainted 6.12.0-rc5-00063-g76aaf945701c #7963 with the attempting freezer stuck trying to grab the rwsem: task:fsfreeze state:D stack:0 pid:7364 tgid:7364 ppid:995 Call trace: __switch_to+0x1d8/0x348 __schedule+0x8e8/0x2248 schedule+0x110/0x3f0 percpu_down_write+0x2b0/0x680 freeze_super+0x248/0x8a8 do_vfs_ioctl+0x149c/0x1b18 __arm64_sys_ioctl+0xd0/0x1a0 invoke_syscall+0x74/0x268 el0_svc_common.constprop.0+0x160/0x238 do_el0_svc+0x44/0x60 el0_svc+0x44/0xb0 el0t_64_sync_handler+0x118/0x128 el0t_64_sync+0x168/0x170 Fix this by having the io_uring side honor IOCB_NOWAIT, and only attempt a blocking grab of the super block rwsem if it isn't set. For normal issue where IOCB_NOWAIT would always be set, this returns -EAGAIN which will have io_uring core issue a blocking attempt of the write. That will in turn also get completions run, ensuring forward progress. Since freezing requires CAP_SYS_ADMIN in the first place, this isn't something that can be triggered by a regular user.

Informations du CVE

Faiblesses connexes

CWE-ID Nom de la faiblesse Source
CWE-667 Improper Locking
The product does not properly acquire or release a lock on a resource, leading to unexpected resource state changes and behaviors.

Métriques

Métriques Score Gravité CVSS Vecteur Source
V3.1 4.4 MEDIUM CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/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.

High

The attacker requires privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable component allowing access to component-wide settings and files.

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 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 To (excluding) 5.10.230

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.11 To (excluding) 5.15.172

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.16 To (excluding) 6.1.116

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.2 To (excluding) 6.6.60

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.7 To (excluding) 6.11.7

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.12

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.12

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.12

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.12

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.12

Références