CVE-2024-50195
Last modified
CVE-2024-50195 is a medium-severity vulnerability rated 5.5/10 on the CVSS scale. In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: posix-clock: Fix missing timespec64 check in pc_clock_settime() As Andrew pointed out, it will make sense that the PTP core checked timespec64 struct's tv_sec and tv_nsec range before calling ptp->info->settime64(). As the man manual of clock_settime() said, if tp.tv_sec is negative or tp.tv_nsec is outside the range [0..999,999,999], it should return EINVAL, which include dynamic clocks which handles PTP clock, and the condition is consistent with timespec64_valid(). As Thomas suggested, timespec64_valid() only check the timespec is valid, but not ensure that the time is in a valid range, so check it ahead using timespec64_valid_strict() in pc_clock_settime() and return -EINVAL if not valid. There are some drivers that use tp->tv_sec and tp->tv_nsec directly to write registers without validity checks and assume that the higher layer has checked it, which is dangerous and will benefit from this, such as hclge_ptp_settime(), igb_ptp_settime_i210(), _rcar_gen4_ptp_settime(), and some drivers can remove the checks of itself.. EPSS estimates a 0.23% chance of exploitation in the next 30 days.
Description
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: posix-clock: Fix missing timespec64 check in pc_clock_settime() As Andrew pointed out, it will make sense that the PTP core checked timespec64 struct's tv_sec and tv_nsec range before calling ptp->info->settime64(). As the man manual of clock_settime() said, if tp.tv_sec is negative or tp.tv_nsec is outside the range [0..999,999,999], it should return EINVAL, which include dynamic clocks which handles PTP clock, and the condition is consistent with timespec64_valid(). As Thomas suggested, timespec64_valid() only check the timespec is valid, but not ensure that the time is in a valid range, so check it ahead using timespec64_valid_strict() in pc_clock_settime() and return -EINVAL if not valid. There are some drivers that use tp->tv_sec and tp->tv_nsec directly to write registers without validity checks and assume that the higher layer has checked it, which is dangerous and will benefit from this, such as hclge_ptp_settime(), igb_ptp_settime_i210(), _rcar_gen4_ptp_settime(), and some drivers can remove the checks of itself.
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 | >= 2.6.39, < 4.19.323 | — |
| Linux | Linux Kernel | >= 4.20, < 5.4.285 | — |
| Linux | Linux Kernel | >= 5.5, < 5.10.228 | — |
| Linux | Linux Kernel | >= 5.11, < 5.15.169 | — |
| Linux | Linux Kernel | >= 5.16, < 6.1.114 | — |
| Linux | Linux Kernel | >= 6.2, < 6.6.58 | — |
| Linux | Linux Kernel | >= 6.7, < 6.11.5 | — |
| Linux | Linux Kernel | 6.12 | Rc1 |
References
Timeline
- Published
- Last Modified
- Status
- Modified
Frequently Asked Questions
What is CVE-2024-50195?
How severe is CVE-2024-50195?
How do I fix CVE-2024-50195?
Are you affected by CVE-2024-50195?
Run a free Strix scan to check your systems for this vulnerability.
Scan your code nowSource: NVD / NIST
