CVE-2024-47702
Last modified
CVE-2024-47702 is a medium-severity vulnerability rated 5.5/10 on the CVSS scale. In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: bpf: Fail verification for sign-extension of packet data/data_end/data_meta syzbot reported a kernel crash due to commit 1f1e864b6555 ("bpf: Handle sign-extenstin ctx member accesses"). The reason is due to sign-extension of 32-bit load for packet data/data_end/data_meta uapi field. The original code looks like: r2 = *(s32 *)(r1 + 76) /* load __sk_buff->data */ r3 = *(u32 *)(r1 + 80) /* load __sk_buff->data_end */ r0 = r2 r0 += 8 if r3 > r0 goto +1 ... Note that __sk_buff->data load has 32-bit sign extension. After verification and convert_ctx_accesses(), the final asm code looks like: r2 = *(u64 *)(r1 +208) r2 = (s32)r2 r3 = *(u64 *)(r1 +80) r0 = r2 r0 += 8 if r3 > r0 goto pc+1 ... Note that 'r2 = (s32)r2' may make the kernel __sk_buff->data address invalid which may cause runtime failure. Currently, in C code, typically we have void *data = (void *)(long)skb->data; void *data_end = (void *)(long)skb->data_end; ... and it will generate r2 = *(u64 *)(r1 +208) r3 = *(u64 *)(r1 +80) r0 = r2 r0 += 8 if r3 > r0 goto pc+1 If we allow sign-extension, void *data = (void *)(long)(int)skb->data; void *data_end = (void *)(long)skb->data_end; ... the generated code looks like r2 = *(u64 *)(r1 +208) r2 <<= 32 r2 s>>= 32 r3 = *(u64 *)(r1 +80) r0 = r2 r0 += 8 if r3 > r0 goto pc+1 and this will cause verification failure since "r2 <<= 32" is not allowed as "r2" is a packet pointer. To fix this issue for case r2 = *(s32 *)(r1 + 76) /* load __sk_buff->data */ this patch added additional checking in is_valid_access() callback function for packet data/data_end/data_meta access. If those accesses are with sign-extenstion, the verification will fail. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/000000000000c90eee061d236d37@google.com/. EPSS estimates a 0.20% chance of exploitation in the next 30 days.
Description
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: bpf: Fail verification for sign-extension of packet data/data_end/data_meta syzbot reported a kernel crash due to commit 1f1e864b6555 ("bpf: Handle sign-extenstin ctx member accesses"). The reason is due to sign-extension of 32-bit load for packet data/data_end/data_meta uapi field. The original code looks like: r2 = *(s32 *)(r1 + 76) /* load __sk_buff->data */ r3 = *(u32 *)(r1 + 80) /* load __sk_buff->data_end */ r0 = r2 r0 += 8 if r3 > r0 goto +1 ... Note that __sk_buff->data load has 32-bit sign extension. After verification and convert_ctx_accesses(), the final asm code looks like: r2 = *(u64 *)(r1 +208) r2 = (s32)r2 r3 = *(u64 *)(r1 +80) r0 = r2 r0 += 8 if r3 > r0 goto pc+1 ... Note that 'r2 = (s32)r2' may make the kernel __sk_buff->data address invalid which may cause runtime failure. Currently, in C code, typically we have void *data = (void *)(long)skb->data; void *data_end = (void *)(long)skb->data_end; ... and it will generate r2 = *(u64 *)(r1 +208) r3 = *(u64 *)(r1 +80) r0 = r2 r0 += 8 if r3 > r0 goto pc+1 If we allow sign-extension, void *data = (void *)(long)(int)skb->data; void *data_end = (void *)(long)skb->data_end; ... the generated code looks like r2 = *(u64 *)(r1 +208) r2 <<= 32 r2 s>>= 32 r3 = *(u64 *)(r1 +80) r0 = r2 r0 += 8 if r3 > r0 goto pc+1 and this will cause verification failure since "r2 <<= 32" is not allowed as "r2" is a packet pointer. To fix this issue for case r2 = *(s32 *)(r1 + 76) /* load __sk_buff->data */ this patch added additional checking in is_valid_access() callback function for packet data/data_end/data_meta access. If those accesses are with sign-extenstion, the verification will fail. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/000000000000c90eee061d236d37@google.com/
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 | >= 6.6, < 6.10.13 |
| Linux | Linux Kernel | >= 6.11, < 6.11.2 |
References
Timeline
- Published
- Last Modified
- Status
- Analyzed
Frequently Asked Questions
What is CVE-2024-47702?
How severe is CVE-2024-47702?
How do I fix CVE-2024-47702?
Are you affected by CVE-2024-47702?
Run a free Strix scan to check your systems for this vulnerability.
Scan your code nowSource: NVD / NIST
