CVE-2024-53123

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

mptcp: error out earlier on disconnect

Eric reported a division by zero splat in the MPTCP protocol:

Oops: divide error: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP KASAN PTI CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 6094 Comm: syz-executor317 Not tainted 6.12.0-rc5-syzkaller-00291-g05b92660cdfe #0 Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS Google 09/13/2024 RIP: 0010:__tcp_select_window+0x5b4/0x1310 net/ipv4/tcp_output.c:3163 Code: f6 44 01 e3 89 df e8 9b 75 09 f8 44 39 f3 0f 8d 11 ff ff ff e8 0d 74 09 f8 45 89 f4 e9 04 ff ff ff e8 00 74 09 f8 44 89 f0 99 7c 24 14 41 29 d6 45 89 f4 e9 ec fe ff ff e8 e8 73 09 f8 48 89 RSP: 0018:ffffc900041f7930 EFLAGS: 00010293 RAX: 0000000000017e67 RBX: 0000000000017e67 RCX: ffffffff8983314b RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: ffffffff898331b0 RDI: 0000000000000004 RBP: 00000000005d6000 R08: 0000000000000004 R09: 0000000000017e67 R10: 0000000000003e80 R11: 0000000000000000 R12: 0000000000003e80 R13: ffff888031d9b440 R14: 0000000000017e67 R15: 00000000002eb000 FS: 00007feb5d7f16c0(0000) GS:ffff8880b8700000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 CR2: 00007feb5d8adbb8 CR3: 0000000074e4c000 CR4: 00000000003526f0 DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000 DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400 Call Trace: __tcp_cleanup_rbuf+0x3e7/0x4b0 net/ipv4/tcp.c:1493 mptcp_rcv_space_adjust net/mptcp/protocol.c:2085 [inline] mptcp_recvmsg+0x2156/0x2600 net/mptcp/protocol.c:2289 inet_recvmsg+0x469/0x6a0 net/ipv4/af_inet.c:885 sock_recvmsg_nosec net/socket.c:1051 [inline] sock_recvmsg+0x1b2/0x250 net/socket.c:1073 __sys_recvfrom+0x1a5/0x2e0 net/socket.c:2265 __do_sys_recvfrom net/socket.c:2283 [inline] __se_sys_recvfrom net/socket.c:2279 [inline] __x64_sys_recvfrom+0xe0/0x1c0 net/socket.c:2279 do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:52 [inline] do_syscall_64+0xcd/0x250 arch/x86/entry/common.c:83 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x77/0x7f RIP: 0033:0x7feb5d857559 Code: 28 00 00 00 75 05 48 83 c4 28 c3 e8 51 18 00 00 90 48 89 f8 48 89 f7 48 89 d6 48 89 ca 4d 89 c2 4d 89 c8 4c 8b 4c 24 08 0f 05 <48> 3d 01 f0 ff ff 73 01 c3 48 c7 c1 b0 ff ff ff f7 d8 64 89 01 48 RSP: 002b:00007feb5d7f1208 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 000000000000002d RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 00007feb5d8e1318 RCX: 00007feb5d857559 RDX: 000000800000000e RSI: 0000000000000000 RDI: 0000000000000003 RBP: 00007feb5d8e1310 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: ffffffff81000000 R10: 0000000000000100 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 00007feb5d8e131c R13: 00007feb5d8ae074 R14: 000000800000000e R15: 00000000fffffdef

and provided a nice reproducer.

The root cause is the current bad handling of racing disconnect. After the blamed commit below, sk_wait_data() can return (with error) with the underlying socket disconnected and a zero rcv_mss.

Catch the error and return without performing any additional operations on the current socket.

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/581302298524e9d77c4c44ff5156a6cd112227ae
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/955388e1d5d222c4101c596b536d41b91a8b212e
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/a66805c9b22caf4e42af7a616f6c6b83c90d1010
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/a749b23059b43a9b1787eb36c5d9d44150a34238