fkie_cve-2024-27005
Vulnerability from fkie_nvd
Published
2024-05-01 06:15
Modified
2024-11-21 09:03
Severity ?
6.3 (Medium) - CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:H
Summary
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: interconnect: Don't access req_list while it's being manipulated The icc_lock mutex was split into separate icc_lock and icc_bw_lock mutexes in [1] to avoid lockdep splats. However, this didn't adequately protect access to icc_node::req_list. The icc_set_bw() function will eventually iterate over req_list while only holding icc_bw_lock, but req_list can be modified while only holding icc_lock. This causes races between icc_set_bw(), of_icc_get(), and icc_put(). Example A: CPU0 CPU1 ---- ---- icc_set_bw(path_a) mutex_lock(&icc_bw_lock); icc_put(path_b) mutex_lock(&icc_lock); aggregate_requests() hlist_for_each_entry(r, ... hlist_del(... <r = invalid pointer> Example B: CPU0 CPU1 ---- ---- icc_set_bw(path_a) mutex_lock(&icc_bw_lock); path_b = of_icc_get() of_icc_get_by_index() mutex_lock(&icc_lock); path_find() path_init() aggregate_requests() hlist_for_each_entry(r, ... hlist_add_head(... <r = invalid pointer> Fix this by ensuring icc_bw_lock is always held before manipulating icc_node::req_list. The additional places icc_bw_lock is held don't perform any memory allocations, so we should still be safe from the original lockdep splats that motivated the separate locks. [1] commit af42269c3523 ("interconnect: Fix locking for runpm vs reclaim")
References
416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/4c65507121ea8e0b47fae6d2049c8688390d46b6
416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/d0d04efa2e367921654b5106cc5c05e3757c2b42
416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/de1bf25b6d771abdb52d43546cf57ad775fb68a1
af854a3a-2127-422b-91ae-364da2661108https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/4c65507121ea8e0b47fae6d2049c8688390d46b6
af854a3a-2127-422b-91ae-364da2661108https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/d0d04efa2e367921654b5106cc5c05e3757c2b42
af854a3a-2127-422b-91ae-364da2661108https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/de1bf25b6d771abdb52d43546cf57ad775fb68a1
Impacted products
Vendor Product Version


To clipboard 

{
  "cveTags": [],
  "descriptions": [
    {
      "lang": "en",
      "value": "In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:\n\ninterconnect: Don\u0027t access req_list while it\u0027s being manipulated\n\nThe icc_lock mutex was split into separate icc_lock and icc_bw_lock\nmutexes in [1] to avoid lockdep splats. However, this didn\u0027t adequately\nprotect access to icc_node::req_list.\n\nThe icc_set_bw() function will eventually iterate over req_list while\nonly holding icc_bw_lock, but req_list can be modified while only\nholding icc_lock. This causes races between icc_set_bw(), of_icc_get(),\nand icc_put().\n\nExample A:\n\n  CPU0                               CPU1\n  ----                               ----\n  icc_set_bw(path_a)\n    mutex_lock(\u0026icc_bw_lock);\n                                     icc_put(path_b)\n                                       mutex_lock(\u0026icc_lock);\n    aggregate_requests()\n      hlist_for_each_entry(r, ...\n                                       hlist_del(...\n        \u003cr = invalid pointer\u003e\n\nExample B:\n\n  CPU0                               CPU1\n  ----                               ----\n  icc_set_bw(path_a)\n    mutex_lock(\u0026icc_bw_lock);\n                                     path_b = of_icc_get()\n                                       of_icc_get_by_index()\n                                         mutex_lock(\u0026icc_lock);\n                                         path_find()\n                                           path_init()\n    aggregate_requests()\n      hlist_for_each_entry(r, ...\n                                             hlist_add_head(...\n        \u003cr = invalid pointer\u003e\n\nFix this by ensuring icc_bw_lock is always held before manipulating\nicc_node::req_list. The additional places icc_bw_lock is held don\u0027t\nperform any memory allocations, so we should still be safe from the\noriginal lockdep splats that motivated the separate locks.\n\n[1] commit af42269c3523 (\"interconnect: Fix locking for runpm vs reclaim\")"
    },
    {
      "lang": "es",
      "value": "En el kernel de Linux, se ha resuelto la siguiente vulnerabilidad: interconexi\u00f3n: no acceder a req_list mientras se est\u00e1 manipulando. El mutex icc_lock se dividi\u00f3 en mutex icc_lock e icc_bw_lock separados en [1] para evitar s\u00edmbolos de bloqueo. Sin embargo, esto no protegi\u00f3 adecuadamente el acceso a icc_node::req_list. La funci\u00f3n icc_set_bw() eventualmente iterar\u00e1 sobre req_list mientras solo mantiene icc_bw_lock, pero req_list se puede modificar mientras solo mantiene icc_lock. Esto provoca ejecuci\u00f3ns entre icc_set_bw(), of_icc_get() e icc_put(). Ejemplo A: CPU0 CPU1 ---- ---- icc_set_bw(path_a) mutex_lock(\u0026amp;icc_bw_lock); icc_put(ruta_b) mutex_lock(\u0026amp;icc_lock); agregado_requests() hlist_for_each_entry(r, ... hlist_del(...  Ejemplo B: CPU0 CPU1 ---- ---- icc_set_bw(path_a) mutex_lock(\u0026amp;icc_bw_lock); path_b = of_icc_get() of_icc_get_by_index( ) mutex_lock(\u0026amp;icc_lock); path_find() path_init() agregado_requests() hlist_for_each_entry(r, ... hlist_add_head(...  Solucione este problema asegur\u00e1ndose de que icc_bw_lock siempre se mantenga antes de manipular icc_node::req_list. El adicional Los lugares donde se mantiene icc_bw_lock no realizan ninguna asignaci\u00f3n de memoria, por lo que a\u00fan deber\u00edamos estar a salvo de los s\u00edmbolos de bloqueo originales que motivaron los bloqueos separados [1] commit af42269c3523 (\"interconexi\u00f3n: arreglar el bloqueo para runpm vs reclaim\")"
    }
  ],
  "id": "CVE-2024-27005",
  "lastModified": "2024-11-21T09:03:36.110",
  "metrics": {
    "cvssMetricV31": [
      {
        "cvssData": {
          "attackComplexity": "HIGH",
          "attackVector": "LOCAL",
          "availabilityImpact": "HIGH",
          "baseScore": 6.3,
          "baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
          "confidentialityImpact": "HIGH",
          "integrityImpact": "NONE",
          "privilegesRequired": "LOW",
          "scope": "UNCHANGED",
          "userInteraction": "NONE",
          "vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:H",
          "version": "3.1"
        },
        "exploitabilityScore": 1.0,
        "impactScore": 5.2,
        "source": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
        "type": "Secondary"
      }
    ]
  },
  "published": "2024-05-01T06:15:18.883",
  "references": [
    {
      "source": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/4c65507121ea8e0b47fae6d2049c8688390d46b6"
    },
    {
      "source": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/d0d04efa2e367921654b5106cc5c05e3757c2b42"
    },
    {
      "source": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/de1bf25b6d771abdb52d43546cf57ad775fb68a1"
    },
    {
      "source": "af854a3a-2127-422b-91ae-364da2661108",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/4c65507121ea8e0b47fae6d2049c8688390d46b6"
    },
    {
      "source": "af854a3a-2127-422b-91ae-364da2661108",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/d0d04efa2e367921654b5106cc5c05e3757c2b42"
    },
    {
      "source": "af854a3a-2127-422b-91ae-364da2661108",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/de1bf25b6d771abdb52d43546cf57ad775fb68a1"
    }
  ],
  "sourceIdentifier": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
  "vulnStatus": "Awaiting Analysis"
}


Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.




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.