CVE-2024-42293

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

arm64: mm: Fix lockless walks with static and dynamic page-table folding

Lina reports random oopsen originating from the fast GUP code when 16K pages are used with 4-level page-tables, the fourth level being folded at runtime due to lack of LPA2.

In this configuration, the generic implementation of p4d_offset_lockless() will return a p4d_t * corresponding to the pgd_t allocated on the stack of the caller, gup_fast_pgd_range(). This is normally fine, but when the fourth level of page-table is folded at runtime, pud_offset_lockless() will offset from the address of the p4d_t to calculate the address of the PUD in the same page-table page. This results in a stray stack read when the p4d_t has been allocated on the stack and can send the walker into the weeds.

Fix the problem by providing our own definition of p4d_offset_lockless() when CONFIG_PGTABLE_LEVELS <= 4 which returns the real page-table pointer rather than the address of the local stack variable.

Weakness

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

Affected Software

Potential Mitigations

• 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.
• To reduce the likelihood of introducing an out-of-bounds read, ensure that you validate and ensure correct calculations for any length argument, buffer size calculation, or offset. Be especially careful of relying on a sentinel (i.e. special character such as NUL) in untrusted inputs.

Related Attack Patterns

• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/540.html

References

• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/36639013b3462c06ff8e3400a427f775b4fc97f5
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/78672d49d3eebbcda3589f4d6e589caf357c5a59