CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2016-10741

Concurrent Execution using Shared Resource with Improper Synchronization ('Race Condition')

Published: Feb 01, 2019 | Modified: Apr 18, 2019
CVSS 3.x
4.7
MEDIUM
Source:
NVD
CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS 2.x
4.7 MEDIUM
AV:L/AC:M/Au:N/C:N/I:N/A:C
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
4.7 LOW
CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Ubuntu
MEDIUM

In the Linux kernel before 4.9.3, fs/xfs/xfs_aops.c allows local users to cause a denial of service (system crash) because there is a race condition between direct and memory-mapped I/O (associated with a hole) that is handled with BUG_ON instead of an I/O failure.

Weakness

The product contains a code sequence that can run concurrently with other code, and the code sequence requires temporary, exclusive access to a shared resource, but a timing window exists in which the shared resource can be modified by another code sequence that is operating concurrently.

Affected Software

Name Vendor Start Version End Version
Linux_kernel Linux * 4.9.3 (excluding)
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 RedHat kernel-rt-0:3.10.0-693.rt56.617.el7 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 RedHat kernel-0:3.10.0-693.el7 *
Red Hat Enterprise MRG 2 RedHat kernel-rt-1:3.10.0-693.2.1.rt56.585.el6rt *
Linux Ubuntu esm-infra/xenial *
Linux Ubuntu precise/esm *
Linux Ubuntu trusty *
Linux Ubuntu trusty/esm *
Linux Ubuntu upstream *
Linux Ubuntu xenial *
Linux-aws Ubuntu esm-infra/xenial *
Linux-aws Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-aws Ubuntu xenial *
Linux-aws-hwe Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-azure Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-azure-edge Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-euclid Ubuntu esm-apps/xenial *
Linux-euclid Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-euclid Ubuntu xenial *
Linux-flo Ubuntu esm-apps/xenial *
Linux-flo Ubuntu trusty *
Linux-flo Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-flo Ubuntu xenial *
Linux-gcp Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-gcp-edge Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-gke Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-gke Ubuntu xenial *
Linux-goldfish Ubuntu esm-apps/xenial *
Linux-goldfish Ubuntu trusty *
Linux-goldfish Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-goldfish Ubuntu xenial *
Linux-grouper Ubuntu trusty *
Linux-grouper Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-hwe Ubuntu esm-infra/xenial *
Linux-hwe Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-hwe Ubuntu xenial *
Linux-hwe-edge Ubuntu esm-infra/xenial *
Linux-hwe-edge Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-hwe-edge Ubuntu xenial *
Linux-kvm Ubuntu esm-infra/xenial *
Linux-kvm Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-kvm Ubuntu xenial *
Linux-lts-trusty Ubuntu precise/esm *
Linux-lts-trusty Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-lts-utopic Ubuntu trusty *
Linux-lts-utopic Ubuntu trusty/esm *
Linux-lts-utopic Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-lts-vivid Ubuntu trusty *
Linux-lts-vivid Ubuntu trusty/esm *
Linux-lts-vivid Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-lts-wily Ubuntu trusty *
Linux-lts-wily Ubuntu trusty/esm *
Linux-lts-wily Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-lts-xenial Ubuntu trusty *
Linux-lts-xenial Ubuntu trusty/esm *
Linux-lts-xenial Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-maguro Ubuntu trusty *
Linux-maguro Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-mako Ubuntu esm-apps/xenial *
Linux-mako Ubuntu trusty *
Linux-mako Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-mako Ubuntu xenial *
Linux-manta Ubuntu trusty *
Linux-manta Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-oem Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-oem Ubuntu xenial *
Linux-oracle Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-raspi2 Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-raspi2 Ubuntu xenial *
Linux-snapdragon Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-snapdragon Ubuntu xenial *

Extended Description

This can have security implications when the expected synchronization is in security-critical code, such as recording whether a user is authenticated or modifying important state information that should not be influenced by an outsider. A race condition occurs within concurrent environments, and is effectively a property of a code sequence. Depending on the context, a code sequence may be in the form of a function call, a small number of instructions, a series of program invocations, etc. A race condition violates these properties, which are closely related:

A race condition exists when an “interfering code sequence” can still access the shared resource, violating exclusivity. Programmers may assume that certain code sequences execute too quickly to be affected by an interfering code sequence; when they are not, this violates atomicity. For example, the single “x++” statement may appear atomic at the code layer, but it is actually non-atomic at the instruction layer, since it involves a read (the original value of x), followed by a computation (x+1), followed by a write (save the result to x). The interfering code sequence could be “trusted” or “untrusted.” A trusted interfering code sequence occurs within the product; it cannot be modified by the attacker, and it can only be invoked indirectly. An untrusted interfering code sequence can be authored directly by the attacker, and typically it is external to the vulnerable product.

Potential Mitigations

  • Minimize the usage of shared resources in order to remove as much complexity as possible from the control flow and to reduce the likelihood of unexpected conditions occurring.
  • Additionally, this will minimize the amount of synchronization necessary and may even help to reduce the likelihood of a denial of service where an attacker may be able to repeatedly trigger a critical section (CWE-400).

References