CVE-2021-47014

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

net/sched: act_ct: fix wild memory access when clearing fragments

while testing re-assembly/re-fragmentation using act_ct, its possible to observe a crash like the following one:

KASAN: maybe wild-memory-access in range [0x0001000000000448-0x000100000000044f] CPU: 50 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/50 Tainted: G S 5.12.0-rc7+ #424 Hardware name: Dell Inc. PowerEdge R730/072T6D, BIOS 2.4.3 01/17/2017 RIP: 0010:inet_frag_rbtree_purge+0x50/0xc0 Code: 00 fc ff df 48 89 c3 31 ed 48 89 df e8 a9 7a 38 ff 4c 89 fe 48 89 df 49 89 c6 e8 5b 3a 38 ff 48 8d 7b 40 48 89 f8 48 c1 e8 03 <42> 80 3c 20 00 75 59 48 8d bb d0 00 00 00 4c 8b 6b 40 48 89 f8 48 RSP: 0018:ffff888c31449db8 EFLAGS: 00010203 RAX: 0000200000000089 RBX: 000100000000040e RCX: ffffffff989eb960 RDX: 0000000000000140 RSI: ffffffff97cfb977 RDI: 000100000000044e RBP: 0000000000000900 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: ffffed1186289350 R10: 0000000000000003 R11: ffffed1186289350 R12: dffffc0000000000 R13: 000100000000040e R14: 0000000000000000 R15: ffff888155e02160 FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff888c31440000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 CR2: 00005600cb70a5b8 CR3: 0000000a2c014005 CR4: 00000000003706e0 DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000 DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400 Call Trace: inet_frag_destroy+0xa9/0x150 call_timer_fn+0x2d/0x180 run_timer_softirq+0x4fe/0xe70 __do_softirq+0x197/0x5a0 irq_exit_rcu+0x1de/0x200 sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x6b/0x80

when act_ct temporarily stores an IP fragment, restoring the skb qdisc cb results in putting random data in FRAG_CB(), and this causes those wild memory accesses later, when the rbtree is purged. Never overwrite the skb cb in case tcf_ct_handle_fragments() returns -EINPROGRESS.

Weakness

The product does not check or incorrectly checks for unusual or exceptional conditions that are not expected to occur frequently during day to day operation of the product.

Affected Software

Extended Description

The programmer may assume that certain events or conditions will never occur or do not need to be worried about, such as low memory conditions, lack of access to resources due to restrictive permissions, or misbehaving clients or components. However, attackers may intentionally trigger these unusual conditions, thus violating the programmer’s assumptions, possibly introducing instability, incorrect behavior, or a vulnerability. Note that this entry is not exclusively about the use of exceptions and exception handling, which are mechanisms for both checking and handling unusual or unexpected conditions.

Potential Mitigations

• Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
• Choose languages with features such as exception handling that force the programmer to anticipate unusual conditions that may generate exceptions. Custom exceptions may need to be developed to handle unusual business-logic conditions. Be careful not to pass sensitive exceptions back to the user (CWE-209, CWE-248).
• Ensure that error messages only contain minimal details that are useful to the intended audience and no one else. The messages need to strike the balance between being too cryptic (which can confuse users) or being too detailed (which may reveal more than intended). The messages should not reveal the methods that were used to determine the error. Attackers can use detailed information to refine or optimize their original attack, thereby increasing their chances of success.
• If errors must be captured in some detail, record them in log messages, but consider what could occur if the log messages can be viewed by attackers. Highly sensitive information such as passwords should never be saved to log files.
• Avoid inconsistent messaging that might accidentally tip off an attacker about internal state, such as whether a user account exists or not.
• Exposing additional information to a potential attacker in the context of an exceptional condition can help the attacker determine what attack vectors are most likely to succeed beyond DoS.
• Assume all input is malicious. Use an “accept known good” input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
• When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, “boat” may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as “red” or “blue.”
• Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code’s environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.

References

• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/0648941f4c8bbf8b4b6c0b270889ae7aa769b921
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/f77bd544a6bbe69aa50d9ed09f13494cf36ff806
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/0648941f4c8bbf8b4b6c0b270889ae7aa769b921
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/f77bd544a6bbe69aa50d9ed09f13494cf36ff806