fkie_cve-2024-26732
Vulnerability from fkie_nvd
Published
2024-04-03 17:15
Modified
2025-02-03 16:17
Severity ?
Summary
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
net: implement lockless setsockopt(SO_PEEK_OFF)
syzbot reported a lockdep violation [1] involving af_unix
support of SO_PEEK_OFF.
Since SO_PEEK_OFF is inherently not thread safe (it uses a per-socket
sk_peek_off field), there is really no point to enforce a pointless
thread safety in the kernel.
After this patch :
- setsockopt(SO_PEEK_OFF) no longer acquires the socket lock.
- skb_consume_udp() no longer has to acquire the socket lock.
- af_unix no longer needs a special version of sk_set_peek_off(),
because it does not lock u->iolock anymore.
As a followup, we could replace prot->set_peek_off to be a boolean
and avoid an indirect call, since we always use sk_set_peek_off().
[1]
WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
6.8.0-rc4-syzkaller-00267-g0f1dd5e91e2b #0 Not tainted
syz-executor.2/30025 is trying to acquire lock:
ffff8880765e7d80 (&u->iolock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: unix_set_peek_off+0x26/0xa0 net/unix/af_unix.c:789
but task is already holding lock:
ffff8880765e7930 (sk_lock-AF_UNIX){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: lock_sock include/net/sock.h:1691 [inline]
ffff8880765e7930 (sk_lock-AF_UNIX){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: sockopt_lock_sock net/core/sock.c:1060 [inline]
ffff8880765e7930 (sk_lock-AF_UNIX){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: sk_setsockopt+0xe52/0x3360 net/core/sock.c:1193
which lock already depends on the new lock.
the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
-> #1 (sk_lock-AF_UNIX){+.+.}-{0:0}:
lock_acquire+0x1e3/0x530 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5754
lock_sock_nested+0x48/0x100 net/core/sock.c:3524
lock_sock include/net/sock.h:1691 [inline]
__unix_dgram_recvmsg+0x1275/0x12c0 net/unix/af_unix.c:2415
sock_recvmsg_nosec+0x18e/0x1d0 net/socket.c:1046
____sys_recvmsg+0x3c0/0x470 net/socket.c:2801
___sys_recvmsg net/socket.c:2845 [inline]
do_recvmmsg+0x474/0xae0 net/socket.c:2939
__sys_recvmmsg net/socket.c:3018 [inline]
__do_sys_recvmmsg net/socket.c:3041 [inline]
__se_sys_recvmmsg net/socket.c:3034 [inline]
__x64_sys_recvmmsg+0x199/0x250 net/socket.c:3034
do_syscall_64+0xf9/0x240
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x6f/0x77
-> #0 (&u->iolock){+.+.}-{3:3}:
check_prev_add kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3134 [inline]
check_prevs_add kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3253 [inline]
validate_chain+0x18ca/0x58e0 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3869
__lock_acquire+0x1345/0x1fd0 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5137
lock_acquire+0x1e3/0x530 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5754
__mutex_lock_common kernel/locking/mutex.c:608 [inline]
__mutex_lock+0x136/0xd70 kernel/locking/mutex.c:752
unix_set_peek_off+0x26/0xa0 net/unix/af_unix.c:789
sk_setsockopt+0x207e/0x3360
do_sock_setsockopt+0x2fb/0x720 net/socket.c:2307
__sys_setsockopt+0x1ad/0x250 net/socket.c:2334
__do_sys_setsockopt net/socket.c:2343 [inline]
__se_sys_setsockopt net/socket.c:2340 [inline]
__x64_sys_setsockopt+0xb5/0xd0 net/socket.c:2340
do_syscall_64+0xf9/0x240
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x6f/0x77
other info that might help us debug this:
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0 CPU1
---- ----
lock(sk_lock-AF_UNIX);
lock(&u->iolock);
lock(sk_lock-AF_UNIX);
lock(&u->iolock);
*** DEADLOCK ***
1 lock held by syz-executor.2/30025:
#0: ffff8880765e7930 (sk_lock-AF_UNIX){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: lock_sock include/net/sock.h:1691 [inline]
#0: ffff8880765e7930 (sk_lock-AF_UNIX){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: sockopt_lock_sock net/core/sock.c:1060 [inline]
#0: ffff8880765e7930 (sk_lock-AF_UNIX){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: sk_setsockopt+0xe52/0x3360 net/core/sock.c:1193
stack backtrace:
CPU: 0 PID: 30025 Comm: syz-executor.2 Not tainted 6.8.0-rc4-syzkaller-00267-g0f1dd5e91e2b #0
Hardware name: Google Google C
---truncated---
References
Impacted products
Vendor | Product | Version | |
---|---|---|---|
linux | linux_kernel | * | |
linux | linux_kernel | 6.8 | |
linux | linux_kernel | 6.8 | |
linux | linux_kernel | 6.8 | |
linux | linux_kernel | 6.8 | |
linux | linux_kernel | 6.8 |
{ "configurations": [ { "nodes": [ { "cpeMatch": [ { "criteria": "cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*", "matchCriteriaId": "575EE16B-67F2-4B5B-B5F8-1877715C898B", "versionEndExcluding": "6.7.7", "versionStartIncluding": "6.7", "vulnerable": true }, { "criteria": "cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:6.8:rc1:*:*:*:*:*:*", "matchCriteriaId": "B9F4EA73-0894-400F-A490-3A397AB7A517", "vulnerable": true }, { "criteria": "cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:6.8:rc2:*:*:*:*:*:*", "matchCriteriaId": "056BD938-0A27-4569-B391-30578B309EE3", "vulnerable": true }, { "criteria": "cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:6.8:rc3:*:*:*:*:*:*", "matchCriteriaId": "F02056A5-B362-4370-9FF8-6F0BD384D520", "vulnerable": true }, { "criteria": "cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:6.8:rc4:*:*:*:*:*:*", "matchCriteriaId": "62075ACE-B2A0-4B16-829D-B3DA5AE5CC41", "vulnerable": true }, { "criteria": "cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:6.8:rc5:*:*:*:*:*:*", "matchCriteriaId": "A780F817-2A77-4130-A9B7-5C25606314E3", "vulnerable": true } ], "negate": false, "operator": "OR" } ] } ], "cveTags": [], "descriptions": [ { "lang": "en", "value": "In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:\n\nnet: implement lockless setsockopt(SO_PEEK_OFF)\n\nsyzbot reported a lockdep violation [1] involving af_unix\nsupport of SO_PEEK_OFF.\n\nSince SO_PEEK_OFF is inherently not thread safe (it uses a per-socket\nsk_peek_off field), there is really no point to enforce a pointless\nthread safety in the kernel.\n\nAfter this patch :\n\n- setsockopt(SO_PEEK_OFF) no longer acquires the socket lock.\n\n- skb_consume_udp() no longer has to acquire the socket lock.\n\n- af_unix no longer needs a special version of sk_set_peek_off(),\n because it does not lock u-\u003eiolock anymore.\n\nAs a followup, we could replace prot-\u003eset_peek_off to be a boolean\nand avoid an indirect call, since we always use sk_set_peek_off().\n\n[1]\n\nWARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected\n6.8.0-rc4-syzkaller-00267-g0f1dd5e91e2b #0 Not tainted\n\nsyz-executor.2/30025 is trying to acquire lock:\n ffff8880765e7d80 (\u0026u-\u003eiolock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: unix_set_peek_off+0x26/0xa0 net/unix/af_unix.c:789\n\nbut task is already holding lock:\n ffff8880765e7930 (sk_lock-AF_UNIX){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: lock_sock include/net/sock.h:1691 [inline]\n ffff8880765e7930 (sk_lock-AF_UNIX){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: sockopt_lock_sock net/core/sock.c:1060 [inline]\n ffff8880765e7930 (sk_lock-AF_UNIX){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: sk_setsockopt+0xe52/0x3360 net/core/sock.c:1193\n\nwhich lock already depends on the new lock.\n\nthe existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:\n\n-\u003e #1 (sk_lock-AF_UNIX){+.+.}-{0:0}:\n lock_acquire+0x1e3/0x530 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5754\n lock_sock_nested+0x48/0x100 net/core/sock.c:3524\n lock_sock include/net/sock.h:1691 [inline]\n __unix_dgram_recvmsg+0x1275/0x12c0 net/unix/af_unix.c:2415\n sock_recvmsg_nosec+0x18e/0x1d0 net/socket.c:1046\n ____sys_recvmsg+0x3c0/0x470 net/socket.c:2801\n ___sys_recvmsg net/socket.c:2845 [inline]\n do_recvmmsg+0x474/0xae0 net/socket.c:2939\n __sys_recvmmsg net/socket.c:3018 [inline]\n __do_sys_recvmmsg net/socket.c:3041 [inline]\n __se_sys_recvmmsg net/socket.c:3034 [inline]\n __x64_sys_recvmmsg+0x199/0x250 net/socket.c:3034\n do_syscall_64+0xf9/0x240\n entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x6f/0x77\n\n-\u003e #0 (\u0026u-\u003eiolock){+.+.}-{3:3}:\n check_prev_add kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3134 [inline]\n check_prevs_add kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3253 [inline]\n validate_chain+0x18ca/0x58e0 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3869\n __lock_acquire+0x1345/0x1fd0 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5137\n lock_acquire+0x1e3/0x530 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5754\n __mutex_lock_common kernel/locking/mutex.c:608 [inline]\n __mutex_lock+0x136/0xd70 kernel/locking/mutex.c:752\n unix_set_peek_off+0x26/0xa0 net/unix/af_unix.c:789\n sk_setsockopt+0x207e/0x3360\n do_sock_setsockopt+0x2fb/0x720 net/socket.c:2307\n __sys_setsockopt+0x1ad/0x250 net/socket.c:2334\n __do_sys_setsockopt net/socket.c:2343 [inline]\n __se_sys_setsockopt net/socket.c:2340 [inline]\n __x64_sys_setsockopt+0xb5/0xd0 net/socket.c:2340\n do_syscall_64+0xf9/0x240\n entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x6f/0x77\n\nother info that might help us debug this:\n\n Possible unsafe locking scenario:\n\n CPU0 CPU1\n ---- ----\n lock(sk_lock-AF_UNIX);\n lock(\u0026u-\u003eiolock);\n lock(sk_lock-AF_UNIX);\n lock(\u0026u-\u003eiolock);\n\n *** DEADLOCK ***\n\n1 lock held by syz-executor.2/30025:\n #0: ffff8880765e7930 (sk_lock-AF_UNIX){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: lock_sock include/net/sock.h:1691 [inline]\n #0: ffff8880765e7930 (sk_lock-AF_UNIX){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: sockopt_lock_sock net/core/sock.c:1060 [inline]\n #0: ffff8880765e7930 (sk_lock-AF_UNIX){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: sk_setsockopt+0xe52/0x3360 net/core/sock.c:1193\n\nstack backtrace:\nCPU: 0 PID: 30025 Comm: syz-executor.2 Not tainted 6.8.0-rc4-syzkaller-00267-g0f1dd5e91e2b #0\nHardware name: Google Google C\n---truncated---" }, { "lang": "es", "value": "En el kernel de Linux, se resolvi\u00f3 la siguiente vulnerabilidad: net: implementar lockless setsockopt(SO_PEEK_OFF) syzbot inform\u00f3 una violaci\u00f3n de lockdep [1] que involucraba el soporte de SO_PEEK_OFF por parte de af_unix. Dado que SO_PEEK_OFF no es inherentemente seguro para subprocesos (utiliza un campo sk_peek_off por socket), realmente no tiene sentido imponer una seguridad de subprocesos in\u00fatil en el kernel. Despu\u00e9s de este parche: - setsockopt(SO_PEEK_OFF) ya no adquiere el bloqueo del socket. - skb_consume_udp() ya no tiene que adquirir el bloqueo del socket. - af_unix ya no necesita una versi\u00f3n especial de sk_set_peek_off(), porque ya no bloquea u-\u0026gt;iolock. Como seguimiento, podr\u00edamos reemplazar prot-\u0026gt;set_peek_off para que sea booleano y evitar una llamada indirecta, ya que siempre usamos sk_set_peek_off(). [1] ADVERTENCIA: posible dependencia de bloqueo circular detectada 6.8.0-rc4-syzkaller-00267-g0f1dd5e91e2b #0 No contaminado syz-executor.2/30025 est\u00e1 intentando adquirir el bloqueo: ffff8880765e7d80 (\u0026amp;u-\u0026gt;iolock){+.+. }-{3:3}, en: unix_set_peek_off+0x26/0xa0 net/unix/af_unix.c:789 pero la tarea ya mantiene el bloqueo: ffff8880765e7930 (sk_lock-AF_UNIX){+.+.}-{0:0}, en: lock_sock include/net/sock.h:1691 [en l\u00ednea] ffff8880765e7930 (sk_lock-AF_UNIX){+.+.}-{0:0}, en: sockopt_lock_sock net/core/sock.c:1060 [en l\u00ednea] ffff8880765e7930 (sk_lock-AF_UNIX){+.+.}-{0:0}, en: sk_setsockopt+0xe52/0x3360 net/core/sock.c:1193 cuyo bloqueo ya depende del nuevo bloqueo. la cadena de dependencia existente (en orden inverso) es: -\u0026gt; #1 (sk_lock-AF_UNIX){+.+.}-{0:0}: lock_acquire+0x1e3/0x530 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5754 lock_sock_nested+0x48 /0x100 net/core/sock.c:3524 lock_sock include/net/sock.h:1691 [en l\u00ednea] __unix_dgram_recvmsg+0x1275/0x12c0 net/unix/af_unix.c:2415 sock_recvmsg_nosec+0x18e/0x1d0 net/socket.c:1046 ____sys_recvmsg+0x3c0/0x470 net/socket.c:2801 ___sys_recvmsg net/socket.c:2845 [en l\u00ednea] do_recvmmsg+0x474/0xae0 net/socket.c:2939 __sys_recvmmsg net/socket.c:3018 [en l\u00ednea] __do_sy s_recvmmsg red/socket .c:3041 [en l\u00ednea] __se_sys_recvmmsg net/socket.c:3034 [en l\u00ednea] __x64_sys_recvmmsg+0x199/0x250 net/socket.c:3034 do_syscall_64+0xf9/0x240 Entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x6f/0x77 -\u0026gt; #0 (\u0026amp;u-\u0026gt;iolock) {+.+.}-{3:3}: check_prev_add kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3134 [en l\u00ednea] check_prevs_add kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3253 [en l\u00ednea] validar_chain+0x18ca/0x58e0 kernel/locking/lockdep. c:3869 __lock_acquire+0x1345/0x1fd0 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5137 lock_acquire+0x1e3/0x530 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5754 __mutex_lock_common kernel/locking/mutex.c:608 [en l\u00ednea] __mutex_lock+0x136/0xd70 kernel /locking/mutex.c:752 unix_set_peek_off+0x26/0xa0 net/unix/af_unix.c:789 sk_setsockopt+0x207e/0x3360 do_sock_setsockopt+0x2fb/0x720 net/socket.c:2307 __sys_setsockopt+0x1ad/0x250 net/ enchufe.c: 2334 __do_sys_setsockopt net/socket.c:2343 [en l\u00ednea] __se_sys_setsockopt net/socket.c:2340 [en l\u00ednea] __x64_sys_setsockopt+0xb5/0xd0 net/socket.c:2340 do_syscall_64+0xf9/0x240 entrada_SYSCALL_6 4_after_hwframe+0x6f/0x77 otra informaci\u00f3n que podr\u00eda ayudar depuremos esto: Posible escenario de bloqueo inseguro: CPU0 CPU1 ---- ---- lock(sk_lock-AF_UNIX); bloquear(\u0026amp;u-\u0026gt;iolock); bloquear(sk_lock-AF_UNIX); bloquear(\u0026amp;u-\u0026gt;iolock); *** DEADLOCK *** 1 bloqueo retenido por syz-executor.2/30025: #0: ffff8880765e7930 (sk_lock-AF_UNIX){+.+.}-{0:0}, en: lock_sock include/net/sock. h:1691 [en l\u00ednea] #0: ffff8880765e7930 (sk_lock-AF_UNIX){+.+.}-{0:0}, en: sockopt_lock_sock net/core/sock.c:1060 [en l\u00ednea] #0: ffff8880765e7930 (sk_lock- AF_UNIX){+.+.}-{0:0}, en: sk_setsockopt+0xe52/0x3360 net/core/sock.c:1193 seguimiento de pila: CPU: 0 PID: 30025 Comm: syz-executor.2 No contaminado 6.8 .0-rc4-syzkaller-00267-g0f1dd5e91e2b #0 Nombre del hardware: Google Google C ---truncado---" } ], "id": "CVE-2024-26732", "lastModified": "2025-02-03T16:17:25.537", "metrics": { "cvssMetricV31": [ { "cvssData": { "attackComplexity": "LOW", "attackVector": "LOCAL", "availabilityImpact": "HIGH", "baseScore": 5.5, "baseSeverity": "MEDIUM", "confidentialityImpact": "NONE", "integrityImpact": "NONE", "privilegesRequired": "LOW", "scope": "UNCHANGED", "userInteraction": "NONE", "vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H", "version": "3.1" }, "exploitabilityScore": 1.8, "impactScore": 3.6, "source": "nvd@nist.gov", "type": "Primary" } ] }, "published": "2024-04-03T17:15:50.977", "references": [ { "source": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67", "tags": [ "Patch" ], "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/56667da7399eb19af857e30f41bea89aa6fa812c" }, { "source": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67", "tags": [ "Patch" ], "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/897f75e2cde8a5f9f7529b55249af1fa4248c83b" }, { "source": "af854a3a-2127-422b-91ae-364da2661108", "tags": [ "Patch" ], "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/56667da7399eb19af857e30f41bea89aa6fa812c" }, { "source": "af854a3a-2127-422b-91ae-364da2661108", "tags": [ "Patch" ], "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/897f75e2cde8a5f9f7529b55249af1fa4248c83b" } ], "sourceIdentifier": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67", "vulnStatus": "Analyzed", "weaknesses": [ { "description": [ { "lang": "en", "value": "CWE-667" } ], "source": "nvd@nist.gov", "type": "Primary" } ] }
Loading…
Loading…
Sightings
Author | Source | Type | Date |
---|
Nomenclature
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or seen somewhere by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability is confirmed from an analyst perspective.
- Exploited: This vulnerability was exploited and seen by the user reporting the sighting.
- Patched: This vulnerability was successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.
- Not exploited: This vulnerability was not exploited or seen by the user reporting the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expresses doubt about the veracity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: This vulnerability was not successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.