CVE-2024-56664

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

bpf, sockmap: Fix race between element replace and close()

Element replace (with a socket different from the one stored) may race with sockets close() link popping & unlinking. __sock_map_delete() unconditionally unrefs the (wrong) element:

// set map[0] = s0 map_update_elem(map, 0, s0)

// drop fd of s0 close(s0) sock_map_close() lock_sock(sk) (s0!) sock_map_remove_links(sk) link = sk_psock_link_pop() sock_map_unlink(sk, link) sock_map_delete_from_link // replace map[0] with s1 map_update_elem(map, 0, s1) sock_map_update_elem (s1!) lock_sock(sk) sock_map_update_common psock = sk_psock(sk) spin_lock(&stab->lock) osk = stab->sks[idx] sock_map_add_link(…, &stab->sks[idx]) sock_map_unref(osk, &stab->sks[idx]) psock = sk_psock(osk) sk_psock_put(sk, psock) if (refcount_dec_and_test(&psock)) sk_psock_drop(sk, psock) spin_unlock(&stab->lock) unlock_sock(sk) __sock_map_delete spin_lock(&stab->lock) sk = *psk // s1 replaced s0; sk == s1 if (!sk_test || sk_test == sk) // sk_test (s0) != sk (s1); no branch sk = xchg(psk, NULL) if (sk) sock_map_unref(sk, psk) // unref s1; sks[idx] will dangle psock = sk_psock(sk) sk_psock_put(sk, psock) if (refcount_dec_and_test()) sk_psock_drop(sk, psock) spin_unlock(&stab->lock) release_sock(sk)

Then close(map) enqueues bpf_map_free_deferred, which finally calls sock_map_free(). This results in some refcount_t warnings along with a KASAN splat [1].

Fix __sock_map_delete(), do not allow sock_map_unref() on elements that may have been replaced.

[1]: BUG: KASAN: slab-use-after-free in sock_map_free+0x10e/0x330 Write of size 4 at addr ffff88811f5b9100 by task kworker/u64:12/1063

CPU: 14 UID: 0 PID: 1063 Comm: kworker/u64:12 Not tainted 6.12.0+ #125 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS Arch Linux 1.16.3-1-1 04/01/2014 Workqueue: events_unbound bpf_map_free_deferred Call Trace: dump_stack_lvl+0x68/0x90 print_report+0x174/0x4f6 kasan_report+0xb9/0x190 kasan_check_range+0x10f/0x1e0 sock_map_free+0x10e/0x330 bpf_map_free_deferred+0x173/0x320 process_one_work+0x846/0x1420 worker_thread+0x5b3/0xf80 kthread+0x29e/0x360 ret_from_fork+0x2d/0x70 ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30

Allocated by task 1202: kasan_save_stack+0x1e/0x40 kasan_save_track+0x10/0x30 __kasan_slab_alloc+0x85/0x90 kmem_cache_alloc_noprof+0x131/0x450 sk_prot_alloc+0x5b/0x220 sk_alloc+0x2c/0x870 unix_create1+0x88/0x8a0 unix_create+0xc5/0x180 __sock_create+0x241/0x650 __sys_socketpair+0x1ce/0x420 __x64_sys_socketpair+0x92/0x100 do_syscall_64+0x93/0x180 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e

Freed by task 46: kasan_save_stack+0x1e/0x40 kasan_save_track+0x10/0x30 kasan_save_free_info+0x37/0x60 __kasan_slab_free+0x4b/0x70 kmem_cache_free+0x1a1/0x590 __sk_destruct+0x388/0x5a0 sk_psock_destroy+0x73e/0xa50 process_one_work+0x846/0x1420 worker_thread+0x5b3/0xf80 kthread+0x29e/0x360 ret_from_fork+0x2d/0x70 ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30

The bu —truncated—

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/b015f19fedd2e12283a8450dd0aefce49ec57015
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/bf2318e288f636a882eea39f7e1015623629f168
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/ed1fc5d76b81a4d681211333c026202cad4d5649