CVE-2024-27050

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

libbpf: Use OPTS_SET() macro in bpf_xdp_query()

When the feature_flags and xdp_zc_max_segs fields were added to the libbpf bpf_xdp_query_opts, the code writing them did not use the OPTS_SET() macro. This causes libbpf to write to those fields unconditionally, which means that programs compiled against an older version of libbpf (with a smaller size of the bpf_xdp_query_opts struct) will have its stack corrupted by libbpf writing out of bounds.

The patch adding the feature_flags field has an early bail out if the feature_flags field is not part of the opts struct (via the OPTS_HAS) macro, but the patch adding xdp_zc_max_segs does not. For consistency, this fix just changes the assignments to both fields to use the OPTS_SET() macro.

Weakness

The product writes data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.

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:

• 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].

References

• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/682ddd62abd4bdcee7584246903e7a2df005fe0d
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/92a871ab9fa59a74d013bc04f321026a057618e7
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/cd3be9843247edb8fc6fcd8d8237cbce2bc19f5e
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/fa5bef5e80c6a3321b2b1a7070436f3bc5daf07c