In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
mlxsw: spectrum_acl_tcam: Fix stack corruption
When tc filters are first added to a net device, the corresponding local port gets bound to an ACL group in the device. The group contains a list of ACLs. In turn, each ACL points to a different TCAM region where the filters are stored. During forwarding, the ACLs are sequentially evaluated until a match is found.
One reason to place filters in different regions is when they are added with decreasing priorities and in an alternating order so that two consecutive filters can never fit in the same region because of their key usage.
In Spectrum-2 and newer ASICs the firmware started to report that the maximum number of ACLs in a group is more than 16, but the layout of the register that configures ACL groups (PAGT) was not updated to account for that. It is therefore possible to hit stack corruption [1] in the rare case where more than 16 ACLs in a group are required.
Fix by limiting the maximum ACL group size to the minimum between what the firmware reports and the maximum ACLs that fit in the PAGT register.
Add a test case to make sure the machine does not crash when this condition is hit.
[1] Kernel panic - not syncing: stack-protector: Kernel stack is corrupted in: mlxsw_sp_acl_tcam_group_update+0x116/0x120 […] dump_stack_lvl+0x36/0x50 panic+0x305/0x330 __stack_chk_fail+0x15/0x20 mlxsw_sp_acl_tcam_group_update+0x116/0x120 mlxsw_sp_acl_tcam_group_region_attach+0x69/0x110 mlxsw_sp_acl_tcam_vchunk_get+0x492/0xa20 mlxsw_sp_acl_tcam_ventry_add+0x25/0xe0 mlxsw_sp_acl_rule_add+0x47/0x240 mlxsw_sp_flower_replace+0x1a9/0x1d0 tc_setup_cb_add+0xdc/0x1c0 fl_hw_replace_filter+0x146/0x1f0 fl_change+0xc17/0x1360 tc_new_tfilter+0x472/0xb90 rtnetlink_rcv_msg+0x313/0x3b0 netlink_rcv_skb+0x58/0x100 netlink_unicast+0x244/0x390 netlink_sendmsg+0x1e4/0x440 ____sys_sendmsg+0x164/0x260 ___sys_sendmsg+0x9a/0xe0 __sys_sendmsg+0x7a/0xc0 do_syscall_64+0x40/0xe0 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0x6b
The product writes data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.
| Name | Vendor | Start Version | End Version |
|---|---|---|---|
| Linux_kernel | Linux | 4.19.0 (including) | 5.10.209 (excluding) |
| Linux_kernel | Linux | 5.11.0 (including) | 5.15.148 (excluding) |
| Linux_kernel | Linux | 5.16.0 (including) | 6.1.79 (excluding) |
| Linux_kernel | Linux | 6.2.0 (including) | 6.6.14 (excluding) |
| Linux_kernel | Linux | 6.7.0 (including) | 6.7.2 (excluding) |
Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
For example, many languages that perform their own memory management, such as Java and Perl, are not subject to buffer overflows. Other languages, such as Ada and C#, typically provide overflow protection, but the protection can be disabled by the programmer.
Be wary that a language’s interface to native code may still be subject to overflows, even if the language itself is theoretically safe.
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
Examples include the Safe C String Library (SafeStr) by Messier and Viega [REF-57], and the Strsafe.h library from Microsoft [REF-56]. These libraries provide safer versions of overflow-prone string-handling functions.
Use automatic buffer overflow detection mechanisms that are offered by certain compilers or compiler extensions. Examples include: the Microsoft Visual Studio /GS flag, Fedora/Red Hat FORTIFY_SOURCE GCC flag, StackGuard, and ProPolice, which provide various mechanisms including canary-based detection and range/index checking.
D3-SFCV (Stack Frame Canary Validation) from D3FEND [REF-1334] discusses canary-based detection in detail.
Consider adhering to the following rules when allocating and managing an application’s memory:
Run or compile the software using features or extensions that randomly arrange the positions of a program’s executable and libraries in memory. Because this makes the addresses unpredictable, it can prevent an attacker from reliably jumping to exploitable code.
Examples include Address Space Layout Randomization (ASLR) [REF-58] [REF-60] and Position-Independent Executables (PIE) [REF-64]. Imported modules may be similarly realigned if their default memory addresses conflict with other modules, in a process known as “rebasing” (for Windows) and “prelinking” (for Linux) [REF-1332] using randomly generated addresses. ASLR for libraries cannot be used in conjunction with prelink since it would require relocating the libraries at run-time, defeating the whole purpose of prelinking.
For more information on these techniques see D3-SAOR (Segment Address Offset Randomization) from D3FEND [REF-1335].
Use a CPU and operating system that offers Data Execution Protection (using hardware NX or XD bits) or the equivalent techniques that simulate this feature in software, such as PaX [REF-60] [REF-61]. These techniques ensure that any instruction executed is exclusively at a memory address that is part of the code segment.
For more information on these techniques see D3-PSEP (Process Segment Execution Prevention) from D3FEND [REF-1336].