CVE-2024-57982

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

xfrm: state: fix out-of-bounds read during lookup

lookup and resize can run in parallel.

The xfrm_state_hash_generation seqlock ensures a retry, but the hash functions can observe a hmask value that is too large for the new hlist array.

rehash does: rcu_assign_pointer(net->xfrm.state_bydst, ndst) [..] net->xfrm.state_hmask = nhashmask;

While state lookup does: h = xfrm_dst_hash(net, daddr, saddr, tmpl->reqid, encap_family); hlist_for_each_entry_rcu(x, net->xfrm.state_bydst + h, bydst) {

This is only safe in case the update to state_bydst is larger than net->xfrm.xfrm_state_hmask (or if the lookup function gets serialized via state spinlock again).

Fix this by prefetching state_hmask and the associated pointers. The xfrm_state_hash_generation seqlock retry will ensure that the pointer and the hmask will be consistent.

The existing helpers, like xfrm_dst_hash(), are now unsafe for RCU side, add lockdep assertions to document that they are only safe for insert side.

xfrm_state_lookup_byaddr() uses the spinlock rather than RCU. AFAICS this is an oversight from back when state lookup was converted to RCU, this lock should be replaced with RCU in a future patch.

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/a16871c7832ea6435abb6e0b58289ae7dcb7e4fc
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/dd4c2a174994238d55ab54da2545543d36f4e0d0
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/e952837f3ddb0ff726d5b582aa1aad9aa38d024d