Strix
26.1K

CVE-2024-40998

MEDIUMCVSS 5.5/10EPSS 0.27%

Last modified

CVE-2024-40998 is a medium-severity vulnerability rated 5.5/10 on the CVSS scale. In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ext4: fix uninitialized ratelimit_state->lock access in __ext4_fill_super() In the following concurrency we will access the uninitialized rs->lock: ext4_fill_super ext4_register_sysfs // sysfs registered msg_ratelimit_interval_ms // Other processes modify rs->interval to // non-zero via msg_ratelimit_interval_ms ext4_orphan_cleanup ext4_msg(sb, KERN_INFO, "Errors on filesystem, " __ext4_msg ___ratelimit(&(EXT4_SB(sb)->s_msg_ratelimit_state) if (!rs->interval) // do nothing if interval is 0 return 1; raw_spin_trylock_irqsave(&rs->lock, flags) raw_spin_trylock(lock) _raw_spin_trylock __raw_spin_trylock spin_acquire(&lock->dep_map, 0, 1, _RET_IP_) lock_acquire __lock_acquire register_lock_class assign_lock_key dump_stack(); ratelimit_state_init(&sbi->s_msg_ratelimit_state, 5 * HZ, 10); raw_spin_lock_init(&rs->lock); // init rs->lock here and get the following dump_stack: ========================================================= INFO: trying to register non-static key. The code is fine but needs lockdep annotation, or maybe you didn't initialize this object before use? turning off the locking correctness validator. CPU: 12 PID: 753 Comm: mount Tainted: G E 6.7.0-rc6-next-20231222 #504 [...] Call Trace: dump_stack_lvl+0xc5/0x170 dump_stack+0x18/0x30 register_lock_class+0x740/0x7c0 __lock_acquire+0x69/0x13a0 lock_acquire+0x120/0x450 _raw_spin_trylock+0x98/0xd0 ___ratelimit+0xf6/0x220 __ext4_msg+0x7f/0x160 [ext4] ext4_orphan_cleanup+0x665/0x740 [ext4] __ext4_fill_super+0x21ea/0x2b10 [ext4] ext4_fill_super+0x14d/0x360 [ext4] [...] ========================================================= Normally interval is 0 until s_msg_ratelimit_state is initialized, so ___ratelimit() does nothing. But registering sysfs precedes initializing rs->lock, so it is possible to change rs->interval to a non-zero value via the msg_ratelimit_interval_ms interface of sysfs while rs->lock is uninitialized, and then a call to ext4_msg triggers the problem by accessing an uninitialized rs->lock. EPSS estimates a 0.27% chance of exploitation in the next 30 days.

Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ext4: fix uninitialized ratelimit_state->lock access in __ext4_fill_super() In the following concurrency we will access the uninitialized rs->lock: ext4_fill_super ext4_register_sysfs // sysfs registered msg_ratelimit_interval_ms // Other processes modify rs->interval to // non-zero via msg_ratelimit_interval_ms ext4_orphan_cleanup ext4_msg(sb, KERN_INFO, "Errors on filesystem, " __ext4_msg ___ratelimit(&(EXT4_SB(sb)->s_msg_ratelimit_state) if (!rs->interval) // do nothing if interval is 0 return 1; raw_spin_trylock_irqsave(&rs->lock, flags) raw_spin_trylock(lock) _raw_spin_trylock __raw_spin_trylock spin_acquire(&lock->dep_map, 0, 1, _RET_IP_) lock_acquire __lock_acquire register_lock_class assign_lock_key dump_stack(); ratelimit_state_init(&sbi->s_msg_ratelimit_state, 5 * HZ, 10); raw_spin_lock_init(&rs->lock); // init rs->lock here and get the following dump_stack: ========================================================= INFO: trying to register non-static key. The code is fine but needs lockdep annotation, or maybe you didn't initialize this object before use? turning off the locking correctness validator. CPU: 12 PID: 753 Comm: mount Tainted: G E 6.7.0-rc6-next-20231222 #504 [...] Call Trace: dump_stack_lvl+0xc5/0x170 dump_stack+0x18/0x30 register_lock_class+0x740/0x7c0 __lock_acquire+0x69/0x13a0 lock_acquire+0x120/0x450 _raw_spin_trylock+0x98/0xd0 ___ratelimit+0xf6/0x220 __ext4_msg+0x7f/0x160 [ext4] ext4_orphan_cleanup+0x665/0x740 [ext4] __ext4_fill_super+0x21ea/0x2b10 [ext4] ext4_fill_super+0x14d/0x360 [ext4] [...] ========================================================= Normally interval is 0 until s_msg_ratelimit_state is initialized, so ___ratelimit() does nothing. But registering sysfs precedes initializing rs->lock, so it is possible to change rs->interval to a non-zero value via the msg_ratelimit_interval_ms interface of sysfs while rs->lock is uninitialized, and then a call to ext4_msg triggers the problem by accessing an uninitialized rs->lock. Therefore register sysfs after all initializations are complete to avoid such problems.

Metrics

CVSS 3.1
5.5/10

CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

EPSS Probability
0.27%

18.8th percentile

Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days. Learn more

Weakness Enumeration

Affected Software

VendorProductVersions
LinuxLinux Kernel< 6.6.36
LinuxLinux Kernel>= 6.7, < 6.9.7

References

Timeline

Published
Last Modified
Status
Analyzed

Frequently Asked Questions

What is CVE-2024-40998?
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ext4: fix uninitialized ratelimit_state->lock access in __ext4_fill_super() In the following concurrency we will access the uninitialized rs->lock: ext4_fill_super ext4_register_sysfs // sysfs registered msg_ratelimit_interval_ms // Other processes modify rs->interval to // non-zero via msg_ratelimit_interval_ms ext4_orphan_cleanup ext4_msg(sb, KERN_INFO, "Errors on filesystem, " __ext4_msg ___ratelimit(&(EXT4_SB(sb)->s_msg_ratelimit_state) if (!rs->interval) // do nothing if interval is 0 return 1; raw_spin_trylock_irqsave(&rs->lock, flags) raw_spin_trylock(lock) _raw_spin_trylock __raw_spin_trylock spin_acquire(&lock->dep_map, 0, 1, _RET_IP_) lock_acquire __lock_acquire register_lock_class assign_lock_key dump_stack(); ratelimit_state_init(&sbi->s_msg_ratelimit_state, 5 * HZ, 10); raw_spin_lock_init(&rs->lock); // init rs->lock here and get the following dump_stack: ========================================================= INFO: trying to register non-static key. The code is fine but needs lockdep annotation, or maybe you didn't initialize this object before use? turning off the locking correctness validator. CPU: 12 PID: 753 Comm: mount Tainted: G E 6.7.0-rc6-next-20231222 #504 [...] Call Trace: dump_stack_lvl+0xc5/0x170 dump_stack+0x18/0x30 register_lock_class+0x740/0x7c0 __lock_acquire+0x69/0x13a0 lock_acquire+0x120/0x450 _raw_spin_trylock+0x98/0xd0 ___ratelimit+0xf6/0x220 __ext4_msg+0x7f/0x160 [ext4] ext4_orphan_cleanup+0x665/0x740 [ext4] __ext4_fill_super+0x21ea/0x2b10 [ext4] ext4_fill_super+0x14d/0x360 [ext4] [...] ========================================================= Normally interval is 0 until s_msg_ratelimit_state is initialized, so ___ratelimit() does nothing. But registering sysfs precedes initializing rs->lock, so it is possible to change rs->interval to a non-zero value via the msg_ratelimit_interval_ms interface of sysfs while rs->lock is uninitialized, and then a call to ext4_msg triggers the problem by accessing an uninitialized rs->lock. Therefore register sysfs after all initializations are complete to avoid such problems.
How severe is CVE-2024-40998?
CVE-2024-40998 has a CVSS score of 5.5/10 (MEDIUM severity). The EPSS model estimates a 0.27% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days.
How do I fix CVE-2024-40998?
Check the vendor references and advisories linked above for patched versions and mitigation guidance. You can also run a Strix scan to test if your systems are affected.

Are you affected by CVE-2024-40998?

Run a free Strix scan to check your systems for this vulnerability.

Scan your code now

Source: NVD / NIST