Executive Summary
Informations | |||
---|---|---|---|
Name | CVE-2024-56786 | First vendor Publication | 2025-01-08 |
Vendor | Cve | Last vendor Modification | 2025-01-10 |
Security-Database Scoring CVSS v3
Cvss vector : CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H | |||
---|---|---|---|
Overall CVSS Score | 5.5 | ||
Base Score | 5.5 | Environmental Score | 5.5 |
impact SubScore | 3.6 | Temporal Score | 5.5 |
Exploitabality Sub Score | 1.8 | ||
Attack Vector | Local | Attack Complexity | Low |
Privileges Required | Low | User Interaction | None |
Scope | Unchanged | Confidentiality Impact | None |
Integrity Impact | None | Availability Impact | High |
Calculate full CVSS 3.0 Vectors scores |
Security-Database Scoring CVSS v2
Cvss vector : | |||
---|---|---|---|
Cvss Base Score | N/A | Attack Range | N/A |
Cvss Impact Score | N/A | Attack Complexity | N/A |
Cvss Expoit Score | N/A | Authentication | N/A |
Calculate full CVSS 2.0 Vectors scores |
Detail
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: bpf: put bpf_link's program when link is safe to be deallocated In general, BPF link's underlying BPF program should be considered to be reachable through attach hook -> link -> prog chain, and, pessimistically, we have to assume that as long as link's memory is not safe to free, attach hook's code might hold a pointer to BPF program and use it. As such, it's not (generally) correct to put link's program early before waiting for RCU GPs to go through. More eager bpf_prog_put() that we currently do is mostly correct due to BPF program's release code doing similar RCU GP waiting, but as will be shown in the following patches, BPF program can be non-sleepable (and, thus, reliant on only "classic" RCU GP), while BPF link's attach hook can have sleepable semantics and needs to be protected by RCU Tasks Trace, and for such cases BPF link has to go through RCU Tasks Trace + "classic" RCU GPs before being deallocated. And so, if we put BPF program early, we might free BPF program before we free BPF link, leading to use-after-free situation. So, this patch defers bpf_prog_put() until we are ready to perform bpf_link's deallocation. At worst, this delays BPF program freeing by one extra RCU GP, but that seems completely acceptable. Alternatively, we'd need more elaborate ways to determine BPF hook, BPF link, and BPF program lifetimes, and how they relate to each other, which seems like an unnecessary complication. Note, for most BPF links we still will perform eager bpf_prog_put() and link dealloc, so for those BPF links there are no observable changes whatsoever. Only BPF links that use deferred dealloc might notice slightly delayed freeing of BPF programs. Also, to reduce code and logic duplication, extract program put + link dealloc logic into bpf_link_dealloc() helper. |
Original Source
Url : http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2024-56786 |
CPE : Common Platform Enumeration
Sources (Detail)
Alert History
Date | Informations |
---|---|
2025-01-10 21:20:29 |
|
2025-01-08 21:20:26 |
|