CVE-2024-26768

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

LoongArch: Change acpi_core_pic[NR_CPUS] to acpi_core_pic[MAX_CORE_PIC]

With default config, the value of NR_CPUS is 64. When HW platform has more then 64 cpus, system will crash on these platforms. MAX_CORE_PIC is the maximum cpu number in MADT table (max physical number) which can exceed the supported maximum cpu number (NR_CPUS, max logical number), but kernel should not crash. Kernel should boot cpus with NR_CPUS, let the remainder cpus stay in BIOS.

The potential crash reason is that the array acpi_core_pic[NR_CPUS] can be overflowed when parsing MADT table, and it is obvious that CORE_PIC should be corresponding to physical core rather than logical core, so it is better to define the array as acpi_core_pic[MAX_CORE_PIC].

With the patch, system can boot up 64 vcpus with qemu parameter -smp 128, otherwise system will crash with the following message.

[ 0.000000] CPU 0 Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address 0000420000004259, era == 90000000037a5f0c, ra == 90000000037a46ec [ 0.000000] Oops[#1]: [ 0.000000] CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper Not tainted 6.8.0-rc2+ #192 [ 0.000000] Hardware name: QEMU QEMU Virtual Machine, BIOS unknown 2/2/2022 [ 0.000000] pc 90000000037a5f0c ra 90000000037a46ec tp 9000000003c90000 sp 9000000003c93d60 [ 0.000000] a0 0000000000000019 a1 9000000003d93bc0 a2 0000000000000000 a3 9000000003c93bd8 [ 0.000000] a4 9000000003c93a74 a5 9000000083c93a67 a6 9000000003c938f0 a7 0000000000000005 [ 0.000000] t0 0000420000004201 t1 0000000000000000 t2 0000000000000001 t3 0000000000000001 [ 0.000000] t4 0000000000000003 t5 0000000000000000 t6 0000000000000030 t7 0000000000000063 [ 0.000000] t8 0000000000000014 u0 ffffffffffffffff s9 0000000000000000 s0 9000000003caee98 [ 0.000000] s1 90000000041b0480 s2 9000000003c93da0 s3 9000000003c93d98 s4 9000000003c93d90 [ 0.000000] s5 9000000003caa000 s6 000000000a7fd000 s7 000000000f556b60 s8 000000000e0a4330 [ 0.000000] ra: 90000000037a46ec platform_init+0x214/0x250 [ 0.000000] ERA: 90000000037a5f0c efi_runtime_init+0x30/0x94 [ 0.000000] CRMD: 000000b0 (PLV0 -IE -DA +PG DACF=CC DACM=CC -WE) [ 0.000000] PRMD: 00000000 (PPLV0 -PIE -PWE) [ 0.000000] EUEN: 00000000 (-FPE -SXE -ASXE -BTE) [ 0.000000] ECFG: 00070800 (LIE=11 VS=7) [ 0.000000] ESTAT: 00010000 [PIL] (IS= ECode=1 EsubCode=0) [ 0.000000] BADV: 0000420000004259 [ 0.000000] PRID: 0014c010 (Loongson-64bit, Loongson-3A5000) [ 0.000000] Modules linked in: [ 0.000000] Process swapper (pid: 0, threadinfo=(ptrval), task=(ptrval)) [ 0.000000] Stack : 9000000003c93a14 9000000003800898 90000000041844f8 90000000037a46ec [ 0.000000] 000000000a7fd000 0000000008290000 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 [ 0.000000] 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 00000000019d8000 000000000f556b60 [ 0.000000] 000000000a7fd000 000000000f556b08 9000000003ca7700 9000000003800000 [ 0.000000] 9000000003c93e50 9000000003800898 9000000003800108 90000000037a484c [ 0.000000] 000000000e0a4330 000000000f556b60 000000000a7fd000 000000000f556b08 [ 0.000000] 9000000003ca7700 9000000004184000 0000000000200000 000000000e02b018 [ 0.000000] 000000000a7fd000 90000000037a0790 9000000003800108 0000000000000000 [ 0.000000] 0000000000000000 000000000e0a4330 000000000f556b60 000000000a7fd000 [ 0.000000] 000000000f556b08 000000000eaae298 000000000eaa5040 0000000000200000 [ 0.000000] … [ 0.000000] Call Trace: [ 0.000000] [<90000000037a5f0c>] efi_runtime_init+0x30/0x94 [ 0.000000] [<90000000037a46ec>] platform_init+0x214/0x250 [ 0.000000] [<90000000037a484c>] setup_arch+0x124/0x45c [ 0.000000] [<90000000037a0790>] start_kernel+0x90/0x670 [ 0.000000] [<900000000378b0d8>] kernel_entry+0xd8/0xdc

Weakness

The product copies an input buffer to an output buffer without verifying that the size of the input buffer is less than the size of the output buffer, leading to a buffer overflow.

Affected Software

Potential Mitigations

• 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:

• 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.

• 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].

• Run the code in a “jail” or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software.

• OS-level examples include the Unix chroot jail, AppArmor, and SELinux. In general, managed code may provide some protection. For example, java.io.FilePermission in the Java SecurityManager allows the software to specify restrictions on file operations.

• This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of the application may still be subject to compromise.

• Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.

Related Attack Patterns

• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/10.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/100.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/14.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/24.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/42.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/44.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/45.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/46.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/47.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/67.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/8.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/9.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/92.html

References

• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/0f6810e39898af2d2cabd9313e4dbc945fb5dfdd
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/4551b30525cf3d2f026b92401ffe241eb04dfebe
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/88e189bd16e5889e44a41b3309558ebab78b9280