gsd-2024-26624
Vulnerability from gsd
Modified
2024-02-20 06:02
Details
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
af_unix: fix lockdep positive in sk_diag_dump_icons()
syzbot reported a lockdep splat [1].
Blamed commit hinted about the possible lockdep
violation, and code used unix_state_lock_nested()
in an attempt to silence lockdep.
It is not sufficient, because unix_state_lock_nested()
is already used from unix_state_double_lock().
We need to use a separate subclass.
This patch adds a distinct enumeration to make things
more explicit.
Also use swap() in unix_state_double_lock() as a clean up.
v2: add a missing inline keyword to unix_state_lock_nested()
[1]
WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
6.8.0-rc1-syzkaller-00356-g8a696a29c690 #0 Not tainted
syz-executor.1/2542 is trying to acquire lock:
ffff88808b5df9e8 (rlock-AF_UNIX){+.+.}-{2:2}, at: skb_queue_tail+0x36/0x120 net/core/skbuff.c:3863
but task is already holding lock:
ffff88808b5dfe70 (&u->lock/1){+.+.}-{2:2}, at: unix_dgram_sendmsg+0xfc7/0x2200 net/unix/af_unix.c:2089
which lock already depends on the new lock.
the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
-> #1 (&u->lock/1){+.+.}-{2:2}:
lock_acquire+0x1e3/0x530 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5754
_raw_spin_lock_nested+0x31/0x40 kernel/locking/spinlock.c:378
sk_diag_dump_icons net/unix/diag.c:87 [inline]
sk_diag_fill+0x6ea/0xfe0 net/unix/diag.c:157
sk_diag_dump net/unix/diag.c:196 [inline]
unix_diag_dump+0x3e9/0x630 net/unix/diag.c:220
netlink_dump+0x5c1/0xcd0 net/netlink/af_netlink.c:2264
__netlink_dump_start+0x5d7/0x780 net/netlink/af_netlink.c:2370
netlink_dump_start include/linux/netlink.h:338 [inline]
unix_diag_handler_dump+0x1c3/0x8f0 net/unix/diag.c:319
sock_diag_rcv_msg+0xe3/0x400
netlink_rcv_skb+0x1df/0x430 net/netlink/af_netlink.c:2543
sock_diag_rcv+0x2a/0x40 net/core/sock_diag.c:280
netlink_unicast_kernel net/netlink/af_netlink.c:1341 [inline]
netlink_unicast+0x7e6/0x980 net/netlink/af_netlink.c:1367
netlink_sendmsg+0xa37/0xd70 net/netlink/af_netlink.c:1908
sock_sendmsg_nosec net/socket.c:730 [inline]
__sock_sendmsg net/socket.c:745 [inline]
sock_write_iter+0x39a/0x520 net/socket.c:1160
call_write_iter include/linux/fs.h:2085 [inline]
new_sync_write fs/read_write.c:497 [inline]
vfs_write+0xa74/0xca0 fs/read_write.c:590
ksys_write+0x1a0/0x2c0 fs/read_write.c:643
do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:52 [inline]
do_syscall_64+0xf5/0x230 arch/x86/entry/common.c:83
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0x6b
-> #0 (rlock-AF_UNIX){+.+.}-{2:2}:
check_prev_add kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3134 [inline]
check_prevs_add kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3253 [inline]
validate_chain+0x1909/0x5ab0 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3869
__lock_acquire+0x1345/0x1fd0 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5137
lock_acquire+0x1e3/0x530 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5754
__raw_spin_lock_irqsave include/linux/spinlock_api_smp.h:110 [inline]
_raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0xd5/0x120 kernel/locking/spinlock.c:162
skb_queue_tail+0x36/0x120 net/core/skbuff.c:3863
unix_dgram_sendmsg+0x15d9/0x2200 net/unix/af_unix.c:2112
sock_sendmsg_nosec net/socket.c:730 [inline]
__sock_sendmsg net/socket.c:745 [inline]
____sys_sendmsg+0x592/0x890 net/socket.c:2584
___sys_sendmsg net/socket.c:2638 [inline]
__sys_sendmmsg+0x3b2/0x730 net/socket.c:2724
__do_sys_sendmmsg net/socket.c:2753 [inline]
__se_sys_sendmmsg net/socket.c:2750 [inline]
__x64_sys_sendmmsg+0xa0/0xb0 net/socket.c:2750
do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:52 [inline]
do_syscall_64+0xf5/0x230 arch/x86/entry/common.c:83
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0x6b
other info that might help us debug this:
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0
---truncated---
Aliases
{ "gsd": { "metadata": { "exploitCode": "unknown", "remediation": "unknown", "reportConfidence": "confirmed", "type": "vulnerability" }, "osvSchema": { "aliases": [ "CVE-2024-26624" ], "details": "In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:\n\naf_unix: fix lockdep positive in sk_diag_dump_icons()\n\nsyzbot reported a lockdep splat [1].\n\nBlamed commit hinted about the possible lockdep\nviolation, and code used unix_state_lock_nested()\nin an attempt to silence lockdep.\n\nIt is not sufficient, because unix_state_lock_nested()\nis already used from unix_state_double_lock().\n\nWe need to use a separate subclass.\n\nThis patch adds a distinct enumeration to make things\nmore explicit.\n\nAlso use swap() in unix_state_double_lock() as a clean up.\n\nv2: add a missing inline keyword to unix_state_lock_nested()\n\n[1]\nWARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected\n6.8.0-rc1-syzkaller-00356-g8a696a29c690 #0 Not tainted\n\nsyz-executor.1/2542 is trying to acquire lock:\n ffff88808b5df9e8 (rlock-AF_UNIX){+.+.}-{2:2}, at: skb_queue_tail+0x36/0x120 net/core/skbuff.c:3863\n\nbut task is already holding lock:\n ffff88808b5dfe70 (\u0026u-\u003elock/1){+.+.}-{2:2}, at: unix_dgram_sendmsg+0xfc7/0x2200 net/unix/af_unix.c:2089\n\nwhich lock already depends on the new lock.\n\nthe existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:\n\n-\u003e #1 (\u0026u-\u003elock/1){+.+.}-{2:2}:\n lock_acquire+0x1e3/0x530 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5754\n _raw_spin_lock_nested+0x31/0x40 kernel/locking/spinlock.c:378\n sk_diag_dump_icons net/unix/diag.c:87 [inline]\n sk_diag_fill+0x6ea/0xfe0 net/unix/diag.c:157\n sk_diag_dump net/unix/diag.c:196 [inline]\n unix_diag_dump+0x3e9/0x630 net/unix/diag.c:220\n netlink_dump+0x5c1/0xcd0 net/netlink/af_netlink.c:2264\n __netlink_dump_start+0x5d7/0x780 net/netlink/af_netlink.c:2370\n netlink_dump_start include/linux/netlink.h:338 [inline]\n unix_diag_handler_dump+0x1c3/0x8f0 net/unix/diag.c:319\n sock_diag_rcv_msg+0xe3/0x400\n netlink_rcv_skb+0x1df/0x430 net/netlink/af_netlink.c:2543\n sock_diag_rcv+0x2a/0x40 net/core/sock_diag.c:280\n netlink_unicast_kernel net/netlink/af_netlink.c:1341 [inline]\n netlink_unicast+0x7e6/0x980 net/netlink/af_netlink.c:1367\n netlink_sendmsg+0xa37/0xd70 net/netlink/af_netlink.c:1908\n sock_sendmsg_nosec net/socket.c:730 [inline]\n __sock_sendmsg net/socket.c:745 [inline]\n sock_write_iter+0x39a/0x520 net/socket.c:1160\n call_write_iter include/linux/fs.h:2085 [inline]\n new_sync_write fs/read_write.c:497 [inline]\n vfs_write+0xa74/0xca0 fs/read_write.c:590\n ksys_write+0x1a0/0x2c0 fs/read_write.c:643\n do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:52 [inline]\n do_syscall_64+0xf5/0x230 arch/x86/entry/common.c:83\n entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0x6b\n\n-\u003e #0 (rlock-AF_UNIX){+.+.}-{2:2}:\n check_prev_add kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3134 [inline]\n check_prevs_add kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3253 [inline]\n validate_chain+0x1909/0x5ab0 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 __raw_spin_lock_irqsave include/linux/spinlock_api_smp.h:110 [inline]\n _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0xd5/0x120 kernel/locking/spinlock.c:162\n skb_queue_tail+0x36/0x120 net/core/skbuff.c:3863\n unix_dgram_sendmsg+0x15d9/0x2200 net/unix/af_unix.c:2112\n sock_sendmsg_nosec net/socket.c:730 [inline]\n __sock_sendmsg net/socket.c:745 [inline]\n ____sys_sendmsg+0x592/0x890 net/socket.c:2584\n ___sys_sendmsg net/socket.c:2638 [inline]\n __sys_sendmmsg+0x3b2/0x730 net/socket.c:2724\n __do_sys_sendmmsg net/socket.c:2753 [inline]\n __se_sys_sendmmsg net/socket.c:2750 [inline]\n __x64_sys_sendmmsg+0xa0/0xb0 net/socket.c:2750\n do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:52 [inline]\n do_syscall_64+0xf5/0x230 arch/x86/entry/common.c:83\n entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0x6b\n\nother info that might help us debug this:\n\n Possible unsafe locking scenario:\n\n CPU0 \n---truncated---", "id": "GSD-2024-26624", "modified": "2024-02-20T06:02:29.197709Z", "schema_version": "1.4.0" } }, "namespaces": { "cve.org": { "CVE_data_meta": { "ASSIGNER": "cve@kernel.org", "ID": "CVE-2024-26624", "STATE": "REJECT" }, "data_format": "MITRE", "data_type": "CVE", "data_version": "4.0", "description": { "description_data": [ { "lang": "eng", "value": "** REJECT ** This CVE ID has been rejected or withdrawn by its CVE Numbering Authority." } ] } }, "nvd.nist.gov": { "cve": { "descriptions": [ { "lang": "en", "value": "Rejected reason: This CVE ID has been rejected or withdrawn by its CVE Numbering Authority." } ], "id": "CVE-2024-26624", "lastModified": "2024-03-27T14:15:10.163", "metrics": {}, "published": "2024-03-06T07:15:12.360", "references": [], "sourceIdentifier": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67", "vulnStatus": "Rejected" } } } }
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.