fkie_cve-2024-58060
Vulnerability from fkie_nvd
Published
2025-03-06 16:15
Modified
2025-03-21 15:41
Summary
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: bpf: Reject struct_ops registration that uses module ptr and the module btf_id is missing There is a UAF report in the bpf_struct_ops when CONFIG_MODULES=n. In particular, the report is on tcp_congestion_ops that has a "struct module *owner" member. For struct_ops that has a "struct module *owner" member, it can be extended either by the regular kernel module or by the bpf_struct_ops. bpf_try_module_get() will be used to do the refcounting and different refcount is done based on the owner pointer. When CONFIG_MODULES=n, the btf_id of the "struct module" is missing: WARN: resolve_btfids: unresolved symbol module Thus, the bpf_try_module_get() cannot do the correct refcounting. Not all subsystem's struct_ops requires the "struct module *owner" member. e.g. the recent sched_ext_ops. This patch is to disable bpf_struct_ops registration if the struct_ops has the "struct module *" member and the "struct module" btf_id is missing. The btf_type_is_fwd() helper is moved to the btf.h header file for this test. This has happened since the beginning of bpf_struct_ops which has gone through many changes. The Fixes tag is set to a recent commit that this patch can apply cleanly. Considering CONFIG_MODULES=n is not common and the age of the issue, targeting for bpf-next also.
Impacted products
Vendor Product Version
linux linux_kernel *
linux linux_kernel *



{
  "configurations": [
    {
      "nodes": [
        {
          "cpeMatch": [
            {
              "criteria": "cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
              "matchCriteriaId": "AF4DF509-8040-448A-9D90-DDFA1A298CFE",
              "versionEndExcluding": "6.12.13",
              "versionStartIncluding": "6.9",
              "vulnerable": true
            },
            {
              "criteria": "cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
              "matchCriteriaId": "6D4116B1-1BFD-4F23-BA84-169CC05FC5A3",
              "versionEndExcluding": "6.13.2",
              "versionStartIncluding": "6.13",
              "vulnerable": true
            }
          ],
          "negate": false,
          "operator": "OR"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "cveTags": [],
  "descriptions": [
    {
      "lang": "en",
      "value": "In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:\n\nbpf: Reject struct_ops registration that uses module ptr and the module btf_id is missing\n\nThere is a UAF report in the bpf_struct_ops when CONFIG_MODULES=n.\nIn particular, the report is on tcp_congestion_ops that has\na \"struct module *owner\" member.\n\nFor struct_ops that has a \"struct module *owner\" member,\nit can be extended either by the regular kernel module or\nby the bpf_struct_ops. bpf_try_module_get() will be used\nto do the refcounting and different refcount is done\nbased on the owner pointer. When CONFIG_MODULES=n,\nthe btf_id of the \"struct module\" is missing:\n\nWARN: resolve_btfids: unresolved symbol module\n\nThus, the bpf_try_module_get() cannot do the correct refcounting.\n\nNot all subsystem\u0027s struct_ops requires the \"struct module *owner\" member.\ne.g. the recent sched_ext_ops.\n\nThis patch is to disable bpf_struct_ops registration if\nthe struct_ops has the \"struct module *\" member and the\n\"struct module\" btf_id is missing. The btf_type_is_fwd() helper\nis moved to the btf.h header file for this test.\n\nThis has happened since the beginning of bpf_struct_ops which has gone\nthrough many changes. The Fixes tag is set to a recent commit that this\npatch can apply cleanly. Considering CONFIG_MODULES=n is not\ncommon and the age of the issue, targeting for bpf-next also."
    },
    {
      "lang": "es",
      "value": "En el kernel de Linux, se ha resuelto la siguiente vulnerabilidad: bpf: Rechazar el registro de struct_ops que usa el m\u00f3dulo ptr y falta el m\u00f3dulo btf_id Hay un informe UAF en bpf_struct_ops cuando CONFIG_MODULES=n. En particular, el informe est\u00e1 en tcp_congestion_ops que tiene un miembro \"struct module *owner\". Para struct_ops que tiene un miembro \"struct module *owner\", puede extenderse mediante el m\u00f3dulo de kernel regular o mediante bpf_struct_ops. bpf_try_module_get() se usar\u00e1 para hacer el recuento de referencias y se realiza un recuento de referencias diferente seg\u00fan el puntero del propietario. Cuando CONFIG_MODULES=n, falta el btf_id del \"struct module\": WARN: resolve_btfids: m\u00f3dulo de s\u00edmbolo sin resolver Por lo tanto, bpf_try_module_get() no puede hacer el recuento de referencias correcto. No todos los struct_ops de los subsistemas requieren el miembro \"struct module *owner\", por ejemplo, el reciente sched_ext_ops. Este parche sirve para deshabilitar el registro de bpf_struct_ops si struct_ops tiene el miembro \"struct module *\" y falta el btf_id \"struct module\". El asistente btf_type_is_fwd() se ha movido al archivo de encabezado btf.h para esta prueba. Esto ha sucedido desde el comienzo de bpf_struct_ops, que ha sufrido muchos cambios. La etiqueta Fixes se establece en una confirmaci\u00f3n reciente que este parche puede aplicar sin problemas. Teniendo en cuenta que CONFIG_MODULES=n no es com\u00fan y la antig\u00fcedad del problema, tambi\u00e9n se apunta a bpf-next."
    }
  ],
  "id": "CVE-2024-58060",
  "lastModified": "2025-03-21T15:41:13.050",
  "metrics": {
    "cvssMetricV31": [
      {
        "cvssData": {
          "attackComplexity": "LOW",
          "attackVector": "LOCAL",
          "availabilityImpact": "HIGH",
          "baseScore": 7.8,
          "baseSeverity": "HIGH",
          "confidentialityImpact": "HIGH",
          "integrityImpact": "HIGH",
          "privilegesRequired": "LOW",
          "scope": "UNCHANGED",
          "userInteraction": "NONE",
          "vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
          "version": "3.1"
        },
        "exploitabilityScore": 1.8,
        "impactScore": 5.9,
        "source": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
        "type": "Secondary"
      }
    ]
  },
  "published": "2025-03-06T16:15:52.230",
  "references": [
    {
      "source": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
      "tags": [
        "Patch"
      ],
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/2324fb4e92092837ee278fdd8d60c48ee1a619ce"
    },
    {
      "source": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
      "tags": [
        "Patch"
      ],
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/96ea081ed52bf077cad6d00153b6fba68e510767"
    },
    {
      "source": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
      "tags": [
        "Patch"
      ],
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/b777b14c2a4a4e2322daf8e8ffd42d2b88831b17"
    }
  ],
  "sourceIdentifier": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
  "vulnStatus": "Analyzed",
  "weaknesses": [
    {
      "description": [
        {
          "lang": "en",
          "value": "CWE-416"
        }
      ],
      "source": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
      "type": "Secondary"
    }
  ]
}


Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.


Loading…

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.


Loading…

Loading…