CVE-2024-36927

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

ipv4: Fix uninit-value access in __ip_make_skb()

KMSAN reported uninit-value access in __ip_make_skb() [1]. __ip_make_skb() tests HDRINCL to know if the skb has icmphdr. However, HDRINCL can cause a race condition. If calling setsockopt(2) with IP_HDRINCL changes HDRINCL while __ip_make_skb() is running, the function will access icmphdr in the skb even if it is not included. This causes the issue reported by KMSAN.

Check FLOWI_FLAG_KNOWN_NH on fl4->flowi4_flags instead of testing HDRINCL on the socket.

Also, fl4->fl4_icmp_type and fl4->fl4_icmp_code are not initialized. These are union in struct flowi4 and are implicitly initialized by flowi4_init_output(), but we should not rely on specific union layout.

Initialize these explicitly in raw_sendmsg().

[1] BUG: KMSAN: uninit-value in __ip_make_skb+0x2b74/0x2d20 net/ipv4/ip_output.c:1481 __ip_make_skb+0x2b74/0x2d20 net/ipv4/ip_output.c:1481 ip_finish_skb include/net/ip.h:243 [inline] ip_push_pending_frames+0x4c/0x5c0 net/ipv4/ip_output.c:1508 raw_sendmsg+0x2381/0x2690 net/ipv4/raw.c:654 inet_sendmsg+0x27b/0x2a0 net/ipv4/af_inet.c:851 sock_sendmsg_nosec net/socket.c:730 [inline] __sock_sendmsg+0x274/0x3c0 net/socket.c:745 __sys_sendto+0x62c/0x7b0 net/socket.c:2191 __do_sys_sendto net/socket.c:2203 [inline] __se_sys_sendto net/socket.c:2199 [inline] __x64_sys_sendto+0x130/0x200 net/socket.c:2199 do_syscall_64+0xd8/0x1f0 arch/x86/entry/common.c:83 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x6d/0x75

Uninit was created at: slab_post_alloc_hook mm/slub.c:3804 [inline] slab_alloc_node mm/slub.c:3845 [inline] kmem_cache_alloc_node+0x5f6/0xc50 mm/slub.c:3888 kmalloc_reserve+0x13c/0x4a0 net/core/skbuff.c:577 __alloc_skb+0x35a/0x7c0 net/core/skbuff.c:668 alloc_skb include/linux/skbuff.h:1318 [inline] __ip_append_data+0x49ab/0x68c0 net/ipv4/ip_output.c:1128 ip_append_data+0x1e7/0x260 net/ipv4/ip_output.c:1365 raw_sendmsg+0x22b1/0x2690 net/ipv4/raw.c:648 inet_sendmsg+0x27b/0x2a0 net/ipv4/af_inet.c:851 sock_sendmsg_nosec net/socket.c:730 [inline] __sock_sendmsg+0x274/0x3c0 net/socket.c:745 __sys_sendto+0x62c/0x7b0 net/socket.c:2191 __do_sys_sendto net/socket.c:2203 [inline] __se_sys_sendto net/socket.c:2199 [inline] __x64_sys_sendto+0x130/0x200 net/socket.c:2199 do_syscall_64+0xd8/0x1f0 arch/x86/entry/common.c:83 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x6d/0x75

CPU: 1 PID: 15709 Comm: syz-executor.7 Not tainted 6.8.0-11567-gb3603fcb79b1 #25 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.16.3-1.fc39 04/01/2014

Weakness

The product contains a code sequence that can run concurrently with other code, and the code sequence 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 that is operating concurrently.

Affected Software

Extended Description

This can have security implications when the expected synchronization is in security-critical code, such as recording whether a user is authenticated or modifying important state information that should not be influenced by an outsider. A race condition occurs within concurrent environments, and 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. Programmers may assume that certain code sequences execute too quickly to be affected by an interfering code sequence; when they are not, this violates atomicity. For example, the single “x++” statement may appear atomic at the code layer, but it is actually non-atomic at the instruction layer, since it involves a read (the original value of x), followed by a computation (x+1), followed by a write (save the result to x). 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/5db08343ddb1b239320612036c398e4e1bb52818
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/f5c603ad4e6fcf42f84053e882ebe20184bb309e
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/fc1092f51567277509563800a3c56732070b6aa4
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/5db08343ddb1b239320612036c398e4e1bb52818
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/f5c603ad4e6fcf42f84053e882ebe20184bb309e
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/fc1092f51567277509563800a3c56732070b6aa4