CVE-2024-26837

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

net: bridge: switchdev: Skip MDB replays of deferred events on offload

Before this change, generation of the list of MDB events to replay would race against the creation of new group memberships, either from the IGMP/MLD snooping logic or from user configuration.

While new memberships are immediately visible to walkers of br->mdb_list, the notification of their existence to switchdev event subscribers is deferred until a later point in time. So if a replay list was generated during a time that overlapped with such a window, it would also contain a replay of the not-yet-delivered event.

The driver would thus receive two copies of what the bridge internally considered to be one single event. On destruction of the bridge, only a single membership deletion event was therefore sent. As a consequence of this, drivers which reference count memberships (at least DSA), would be left with orphan groups in their hardware database when the bridge was destroyed.

This is only an issue when replaying additions. While deletion events may still be pending on the deferred queue, they will already have been removed from br->mdb_list, so no duplicates can be generated in that scenario.

To a user this meant that old group memberships, from a bridge in which a port was previously attached, could be reanimated (in hardware) when the port joined a new bridge, without the new bridges knowledge.

For example, on an mv88e6xxx system, create a snooping bridge and immediately add a port to it:

root@infix-06-0b-00:~$ ip link add dev br0 up type bridge mcast_snooping 1 && 
> ip link set dev x3 up master br0

And then destroy the bridge:

root@infix-06-0b-00:~$ ip link del dev br0
root@infix-06-0b-00:~$ mvls atu
ADDRESS             FID  STATE      Q  F  0  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  a
DEV:0 Marvell 88E6393X
33:33:00:00:00:6a     1  static     -  -  0  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
33:33:ff:87:e4:3f     1  static     -  -  0  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff     1  static     -  -  0  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  a
root@infix-06-0b-00:~$

The two IPv6 groups remain in the hardware database because the port (x3) is notified of the hosts membership twice: once via the original event and once via a replay. Since only a single delete notification is sent, the count remains at 1 when the bridge is destroyed.

Then add the same port (or another port belonging to the same hardware domain) to a new bridge, this time with snooping disabled:

root@infix-06-0b-00:~$ ip link add dev br1 up type bridge mcast_snooping 0 && 
> ip link set dev x3 up master br1

All multicast, including the two IPv6 groups from br0, should now be flooded, according to the policy of br1. But instead the old memberships are still active in the hardware database, causing the switch to only forward traffic to those groups towards the CPU (port 0).

Eliminate the race in two steps:

1. Grab the write-side lock of the MDB while generating the replay list.

This prevents new memberships from showing up while we are generating the replay list. But it leaves the scenario in which a deferred event was already generated, but not delivered, before we grabbed the lock. Therefore:

2. Make sure that no deferred version of a replay event is already enqueued to the switchdev deferred queue, before adding it to the replay list, when replaying additions.

Weakness

The product contains a concurrent code sequence that 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 operating concurrently.

Affected Software

Extended Description

A race condition occurs within concurrent environments, and it 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. 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).

Related Attack Patterns

• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/26.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/29.html

References

• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/2d5b4b3376fa146a23917b8577064906d643925f
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/603be95437e7fd85ba694e75918067fb9e7754db
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/dc489f86257cab5056e747344f17a164f63bff4b
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/e0b4c5b1d760008f1dd18c07c35af0442e54f9c8
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/2d5b4b3376fa146a23917b8577064906d643925f
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/603be95437e7fd85ba694e75918067fb9e7754db
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/dc489f86257cab5056e747344f17a164f63bff4b
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/e0b4c5b1d760008f1dd18c07c35af0442e54f9c8