CVE-2024-35944
Last modified
CVE-2024-35944 is a medium-severity vulnerability rated 5.5/10 on the CVSS scale. In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: VMCI: Fix memcpy() run-time warning in dg_dispatch_as_host() Syzkaller hit 'WARNING in dg_dispatch_as_host' bug. memcpy: detected field-spanning write (size 56) of single field "&dg_info->msg" at drivers/misc/vmw_vmci/vmci_datagram.c:237 (size 24) WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 1555 at drivers/misc/vmw_vmci/vmci_datagram.c:237 dg_dispatch_as_host+0x88e/0xa60 drivers/misc/vmw_vmci/vmci_datagram.c:237 Some code commentry, based on my understanding: 544 #define VMCI_DG_SIZE(_dg) (VMCI_DG_HEADERSIZE + (size_t)(_dg)->payload_size) /// This is 24 + payload_size memcpy(&dg_info->msg, dg, dg_size); Destination = dg_info->msg ---> this is a 24 byte structure(struct vmci_datagram) Source = dg --> this is a 24 byte structure (struct vmci_datagram) Size = dg_size = 24 + payload_size {payload_size = 56-24 =32} -- Syzkaller managed to set payload_size to 32. 35 struct delayed_datagram_info { 36 struct datagram_entry *entry; 37 struct work_struct work; 38 bool in_dg_host_queue; 39 /* msg and msg_payload must be together. */ 40 struct vmci_datagram msg; 41 u8 msg_payload[]; 42 }; So those extra bytes of payload are copied into msg_payload[], a run time warning is seen while fuzzing with Syzkaller. One possible way to fix the warning is to split the memcpy() into two parts -- one -- direct assignment of msg and second taking care of payload. Gustavo quoted: "Under FORTIFY_SOURCE we should not copy data across multiple members in a structure.". EPSS estimates a 0.23% chance of exploitation in the next 30 days.
Description
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: VMCI: Fix memcpy() run-time warning in dg_dispatch_as_host() Syzkaller hit 'WARNING in dg_dispatch_as_host' bug. memcpy: detected field-spanning write (size 56) of single field "&dg_info->msg" at drivers/misc/vmw_vmci/vmci_datagram.c:237 (size 24) WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 1555 at drivers/misc/vmw_vmci/vmci_datagram.c:237 dg_dispatch_as_host+0x88e/0xa60 drivers/misc/vmw_vmci/vmci_datagram.c:237 Some code commentry, based on my understanding: 544 #define VMCI_DG_SIZE(_dg) (VMCI_DG_HEADERSIZE + (size_t)(_dg)->payload_size) /// This is 24 + payload_size memcpy(&dg_info->msg, dg, dg_size); Destination = dg_info->msg ---> this is a 24 byte structure(struct vmci_datagram) Source = dg --> this is a 24 byte structure (struct vmci_datagram) Size = dg_size = 24 + payload_size {payload_size = 56-24 =32} -- Syzkaller managed to set payload_size to 32. 35 struct delayed_datagram_info { 36 struct datagram_entry *entry; 37 struct work_struct work; 38 bool in_dg_host_queue; 39 /* msg and msg_payload must be together. */ 40 struct vmci_datagram msg; 41 u8 msg_payload[]; 42 }; So those extra bytes of payload are copied into msg_payload[], a run time warning is seen while fuzzing with Syzkaller. One possible way to fix the warning is to split the memcpy() into two parts -- one -- direct assignment of msg and second taking care of payload. Gustavo quoted: "Under FORTIFY_SOURCE we should not copy data across multiple members in a structure."
Metrics
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Affected Software
| Vendor | Product | Versions |
|---|---|---|
| Linux | Linux Kernel | < 4.19.312 |
| Linux | Linux Kernel | >= 4.20, < 5.4.274 |
| Linux | Linux Kernel | >= 5.5, < 5.10.215 |
| Linux | Linux Kernel | >= 5.11, < 5.15.155 |
| Linux | Linux Kernel | >= 5.16, < 6.1.86 |
| Linux | Linux Kernel | >= 6.2, < 6.6.27 |
| Linux | Linux Kernel | >= 6.7, < 6.8.6 |
| Debian | Debian Linux | 10.0 |
References
- https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2024/06/msg00017.htmlMailing List, Third Party Advisory
- https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2024/06/msg00020.htmlMailing List, Third Party Advisory
Timeline
- Published
- Last Modified
- Status
- Modified
Frequently Asked Questions
What is CVE-2024-35944?
How severe is CVE-2024-35944?
How do I fix CVE-2024-35944?
Are you affected by CVE-2024-35944?
Run a free Strix scan to check your systems for this vulnerability.
Scan your code nowSource: NVD / NIST
