CVE-2024-39506
Last modified
CVE-2024-39506 is a medium-severity vulnerability rated 5.5/10 on the CVSS scale. In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: liquidio: Adjust a NULL pointer handling path in lio_vf_rep_copy_packet In lio_vf_rep_copy_packet() pg_info->page is compared to a NULL value, but then it is unconditionally passed to skb_add_rx_frag() which looks strange and could lead to null pointer dereference. lio_vf_rep_copy_packet() call trace looks like: octeon_droq_process_packets octeon_droq_fast_process_packets octeon_droq_dispatch_pkt octeon_create_recv_info ...search in the dispatch_list... ->disp_fn(rdisp->rinfo, ...) lio_vf_rep_pkt_recv(struct octeon_recv_info *recv_info, ...) In this path there is no code which sets pg_info->page to NULL. So this check looks unneeded and doesn't solve potential problem. But I guess the author had reason to add a check and I have no such card and can't do real test. In addition, the code in the function liquidio_push_packet() in liquidio/lio_core.c does exactly the same. Based on this, I consider the most acceptable compromise solution to adjust this issue by moving skb_add_rx_frag() into conditional scope. Found by Linux Verification Center (linuxtesting.org) with SVACE.. EPSS estimates a 0.29% chance of exploitation in the next 30 days.
Description
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: liquidio: Adjust a NULL pointer handling path in lio_vf_rep_copy_packet In lio_vf_rep_copy_packet() pg_info->page is compared to a NULL value, but then it is unconditionally passed to skb_add_rx_frag() which looks strange and could lead to null pointer dereference. lio_vf_rep_copy_packet() call trace looks like: octeon_droq_process_packets octeon_droq_fast_process_packets octeon_droq_dispatch_pkt octeon_create_recv_info ...search in the dispatch_list... ->disp_fn(rdisp->rinfo, ...) lio_vf_rep_pkt_recv(struct octeon_recv_info *recv_info, ...) In this path there is no code which sets pg_info->page to NULL. So this check looks unneeded and doesn't solve potential problem. But I guess the author had reason to add a check and I have no such card and can't do real test. In addition, the code in the function liquidio_push_packet() in liquidio/lio_core.c does exactly the same. Based on this, I consider the most acceptable compromise solution to adjust this issue by moving skb_add_rx_frag() into conditional scope. Found by Linux Verification Center (linuxtesting.org) with SVACE.
Metrics
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Weakness Enumeration
Affected Software
| Vendor | Product | Versions | Update |
|---|---|---|---|
| Linux | Linux Kernel | >= 4.15, < 4.19.317 | — |
| Linux | Linux Kernel | >= 4.20, < 5.4.279 | — |
| Linux | Linux Kernel | >= 5.5, < 5.10.221 | — |
| Linux | Linux Kernel | >= 5.11, < 5.15.162 | — |
| Linux | Linux Kernel | >= 5.16, < 6.1.95 | — |
| Linux | Linux Kernel | >= 6.2, < 6.6.35 | — |
| Linux | Linux Kernel | >= 6.7, < 6.9.6 | — |
| Linux | Linux Kernel | 6.10 | Rc1 |
References
Timeline
- Published
- Last Modified
- Status
- Modified
Frequently Asked Questions
What is CVE-2024-39506?
How severe is CVE-2024-39506?
How do I fix CVE-2024-39506?
Are you affected by CVE-2024-39506?
Run a free Strix scan to check your systems for this vulnerability.
Scan your code nowSource: NVD / NIST
