CVE-2024-57974

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

udp: Deal with race between UDP socket address change and rehash

If a UDP socket changes its local address while its receiving datagrams, as a result of connect(), there is a period during which a lookup operation might fail to find it, after the address is changed but before the secondary hash (port and address) and the four-tuple hash (local and remote ports and addresses) are updated.

Secondary hash chains were introduced by commit 30fff9231fad (udp: bind() optimisation) and, as a result, a rehash operation became needed to make a bound socket reachable again after a connect().

This operation was introduced by commit 719f835853a9 (udp: add rehash on connect()) which isnt however a complete fix: the socket will be found once the rehashing completes, but not while its pending.

This is noticeable with a socat(1) server in UDP4-LISTEN mode, and a client sending datagrams to it. After the server receives the first datagram (cf. _xioopen_ipdgram_listen()), it issues a connect() to the address of the sender, in order to set up a directed flow.

Now, if the client, running on a different CPU thread, happens to send a (subsequent) datagram while the servers socket changes its address, but is not rehashed yet, this will result in a failed lookup and a port unreachable error delivered to the client, as apparent from the following reproducer:

LEN=$(($(cat /proc/sys/net/core/wmem_default) / 4)) dd if=/dev/urandom bs=1 count=${LEN} of=tmp.in

while :; do taskset -c 1 socat UDP4-LISTEN:1337,null-eof OPEN:tmp.out,create,trunc & sleep 0.1 || sleep 1 taskset -c 2 socat OPEN:tmp.in UDP4:localhost:1337,shut-null wait done

where the client will eventually get ECONNREFUSED on a write() (typically the second or third one of a given iteration):

2024/11/13 21:28:23 socat[46901] E write(6, 0x556db2e3c000, 8192): Connection refused

This issue was first observed as a seldom failure in Podmans tests checking UDP functionality while using pasta(1) to connect the containers network namespace, which leads us to a reproducer with the lookup error resulting in an ICMP packet on a tap device:

LOCAL_ADDR=$(ip -j -4 addr show|jq -rM .[] | .addr_info[0] | select(.scope == global).local)

while :; do ./pasta –config-net -p pasta.pcap -u 1337 socat UDP4-LISTEN:1337,null-eof OPEN:tmp.out,create,trunc & sleep 0.2 || sleep 1 socat OPEN:tmp.in UDP4:${LOCAL_ADDR}:1337,shut-null wait cmp tmp.in tmp.out done

Once this fails:

tmp.in tmp.out differ: char 8193, line 29

we can finally have a look at whats going on:

$ tshark -r pasta.pcap 1 0.000000 :: ? ff02::16 ICMPv6 110 Multicast Listener Report Message v2 2 0.168690 88.198.0.161 ? 88.198.0.164 UDP 8234 60260 ? 1337 Len=8192 3 0.168767 88.198.0.161 ? 88.198.0.164 UDP 8234 60260 ? 1337 Len=8192 4 0.168806 88.198.0.161 ? 88.198.0.164 UDP 8234 60260 ? 1337 Len=8192 5 0.168827 c6:47:05:8d:dc:04 ? Broadcast ARP 42 Who has 88.198.0.161? Tell 88.198.0.164 6 0.168851 9a:55:9a:55:9a:55 ? c6:47:05:8d:dc:04 ARP 42 88.198.0.161 is at 9a:55:9a:55:9a:55 7 0.168875 88.198.0.161 ? 88.198.0.164 UDP 8234 60260 ? 1337 Len=8192 8 0.168896 88.198.0.164 ? 88.198.0.161 ICMP 590 Destination unreachable (Port unreachable) 9 0.168926 88.198.0.161 ? 88.198.0.164 UDP 8234 60260 ? 1337 Len=8192 10 0.168959 88.198.0.161 ? 88.198.0.164 UDP 8234 60260 ? 1337 Len=8192 11 0.168989 88.198.0.161 ? 88.198.0.164 UDP 4138 60260 ? 1337 Len=4096 12 0.169010 88.198.0.161 ? 88.198.0.164 UDP 42 60260 ? 1337 Len=0

On the third datagram received, the network namespace of the container initiates an ARP lookup to deliver the ICMP message.

In another variant of this reproducer, starting the client with:

strace -f pasta –config-net -u 1337 socat UDP4-LISTEN:1337,null-eof OPEN:tmp.out,create,tru —truncated—

Weakness

The product contains a concurrent code sequence that 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 operating concurrently.

Affected Software

Extended Description

A race condition occurs within concurrent environments, and it 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. 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/4f8344fce91c5766d368edb0ad80142eacd805c7
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/a502ea6fa94b1f7be72a24bcf9e3f5f6b7e6e90c
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/d65d3bf309b2649d27b24efd0d8784da2d81f2a6