CVE-2024-57996

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

net_sched: sch_sfq: dont allow 1 packet limit

The current implementation does not work correctly with a limit of

1. iproute2 actually checks for this and this patch adds the check in kernel as well.

This fixes the following syzkaller reported crash:

UBSAN: array-index-out-of-bounds in net/sched/sch_sfq.c:210:6 index 65535 is out of range for type struct sfq_head[128] CPU: 0 PID: 2569 Comm: syz-executor101 Not tainted 5.10.0-smp-DEV #1 Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS Google 09/13/2024 Call Trace: __dump_stack lib/dump_stack.c:79 [inline] dump_stack+0x125/0x19f lib/dump_stack.c:120 ubsan_epilogue lib/ubsan.c:148 [inline] __ubsan_handle_out_of_bounds+0xed/0x120 lib/ubsan.c:347 sfq_link net/sched/sch_sfq.c:210 [inline] sfq_dec+0x528/0x600 net/sched/sch_sfq.c:238 sfq_dequeue+0x39b/0x9d0 net/sched/sch_sfq.c:500 sfq_reset+0x13/0x50 net/sched/sch_sfq.c:525 qdisc_reset+0xfe/0x510 net/sched/sch_generic.c:1026 tbf_reset+0x3d/0x100 net/sched/sch_tbf.c:319 qdisc_reset+0xfe/0x510 net/sched/sch_generic.c:1026 dev_reset_queue+0x8c/0x140 net/sched/sch_generic.c:1296 netdev_for_each_tx_queue include/linux/netdevice.h:2350 [inline] dev_deactivate_many+0x6dc/0xc20 net/sched/sch_generic.c:1362 __dev_close_many+0x214/0x350 net/core/dev.c:1468 dev_close_many+0x207/0x510 net/core/dev.c:1506 unregister_netdevice_many+0x40f/0x16b0 net/core/dev.c:10738 unregister_netdevice_queue+0x2be/0x310 net/core/dev.c:10695 unregister_netdevice include/linux/netdevice.h:2893 [inline] __tun_detach+0x6b6/0x1600 drivers/net/tun.c:689 tun_detach drivers/net/tun.c:705 [inline] tun_chr_close+0x104/0x1b0 drivers/net/tun.c:3640 __fput+0x203/0x840 fs/file_table.c:280 task_work_run+0x129/0x1b0 kernel/task_work.c:185 exit_task_work include/linux/task_work.h:33 [inline] do_exit+0x5ce/0x2200 kernel/exit.c:931 do_group_exit+0x144/0x310 kernel/exit.c:1046 __do_sys_exit_group kernel/exit.c:1057 [inline] __se_sys_exit_group kernel/exit.c:1055 [inline] __x64_sys_exit_group+0x3b/0x40 kernel/exit.c:1055 do_syscall_64+0x6c/0xd0 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x61/0xcb RIP: 0033:0x7fe5e7b52479 Code: Unable to access opcode bytes at RIP 0x7fe5e7b5244f. RSP: 002b:00007ffd3c800398 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 00000000000000e7 RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000000000000000 RCX: 00007fe5e7b52479 RDX: 000000000000003c RSI: 00000000000000e7 RDI: 0000000000000000 RBP: 00007fe5e7bcd2d0 R08: ffffffffffffffb8 R09: 0000000000000014 R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 00007fe5e7bcd2d0 R13: 0000000000000000 R14: 00007fe5e7bcdd20 R15: 00007fe5e7b24270

The crash can be also be reproduced with the following (with a tc recompiled to allow for sfq limits of 1):

tc qdisc add dev dummy0 handle 1: root tbf rate 1Kbit burst 100b lat 1s ../iproute2-6.9.0/tc/tc qdisc add dev dummy0 handle 2: parent 1:10 sfq limit 1 ifconfig dummy0 up ping -I dummy0 -f -c2 -W0.1 8.8.8.8 sleep 1

Scenario that triggers the crash:

• the first packet is sent and queued in TBF and SFQ; qdisc qlen is 1

• TBF dequeues: it peeks from SFQ which moves the packet to the gso_skb list and keeps qdisc qlen set to 1. TBF is out of tokens so it schedules itself for later.

• the second packet is sent and TBF tries to queues it to SFQ. qdisc qlen is now 2 and because the SFQ limit is 1 the packet is dropped by SFQ. At this point qlen is 1, and all of the SFQ slots are empty, however q->tail is not NULL.

At this point, assuming no more packets are queued, when sch_dequeue runs again it will decrement the qlen for the current empty slot causing an underflow and the subsequent out of bounds access.

Weakness

The product uses untrusted input when calculating or using an array index, but the product does not validate or incorrectly validates the index to ensure the index references a valid position within the array.

Affected Software

Potential Mitigations

• For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.
• Even though client-side checks provide minimal benefits with respect to server-side security, they are still useful. First, they can support intrusion detection. If the server receives input that should have been rejected by the client, then it may be an indication of an attack. Second, client-side error-checking can provide helpful feedback to the user about the expectations for valid input. Third, there may be a reduction in server-side processing time for accidental input errors, although this is typically a small savings.
• Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
• For example, Ada allows the programmer to constrain the values of a variable and languages such as Java and Ruby will allow the programmer to handle exceptions when an out-of-bounds index is accessed.
• Run or compile the software using features or extensions that randomly arrange the positions of a program’s executable and libraries in memory. Because this makes the addresses unpredictable, it can prevent an attacker from reliably jumping to exploitable code.
• Examples include Address Space Layout Randomization (ASLR) [REF-58] [REF-60] and Position-Independent Executables (PIE) [REF-64]. Imported modules may be similarly realigned if their default memory addresses conflict with other modules, in a process known as “rebasing” (for Windows) and “prelinking” (for Linux) [REF-1332] using randomly generated addresses. ASLR for libraries cannot be used in conjunction with prelink since it would require relocating the libraries at run-time, defeating the whole purpose of prelinking.
• For more information on these techniques see D3-SAOR (Segment Address Offset Randomization) from D3FEND [REF-1335].
• Use a CPU and operating system that offers Data Execution Protection (using hardware NX or XD bits) or the equivalent techniques that simulate this feature in software, such as PaX [REF-60] [REF-61]. These techniques ensure that any instruction executed is exclusively at a memory address that is part of the code segment.
• For more information on these techniques see D3-PSEP (Process Segment Execution Prevention) from D3FEND [REF-1336].
• 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.
• When accessing a user-controlled array index, use a stringent range of values that are within the target array. Make sure that you do not allow negative values to be used. That is, verify the minimum as well as the maximum of the range of acceptable values.
• Run the code in a “jail” or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software.
• OS-level examples include the Unix chroot jail, AppArmor, and SELinux. In general, managed code may provide some protection. For example, java.io.FilePermission in the Java SecurityManager allows the software to specify restrictions on file operations.
• This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of the application may still be subject to compromise.
• Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.

Related Attack Patterns

• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/100.html

References

• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/10685681bafce6febb39770f3387621bf5d67d0b
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/1b562b7f9231432da40d12e19786c1bd7df653a7
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/1e6d9d87626cf89eeffb4d943db12cb5b10bf961
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/35d0137305ae2f97260a9047f445bd4434bd6cc7
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/7d8947f2153ee9c5ab4cb17861a11cc45f30e8c4
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/7fefc294204f10a3405f175f4ac2be16d63f135e
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/833e9a1c27b82024db7ff5038a51651f48f05e5e
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/e12f6013d0a69660e8b99bfe381b9546ae667328
• https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2025/03/msg00028.html
• https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2025/10/msg00007.html