Lucene search

K
vulnrichmentLinuxVULNRICHMENT:CVE-2024-40998
HistoryJul 12, 2024 - 12:37 p.m.

CVE-2024-40998 ext4: fix uninitialized ratelimit_state->lock access in __ext4_fill_super()

2024-07-1212:37:39
Linux
github.com
1
linux kernel
vulnerability
ext4
ratelimit_state
lock access
sysfs
concurrency
register_lock_class
dump_stack
interval
msg_ratelimit_interface
ext4_msg
orphan_cleanup
fix
uninitialized
cve-2024-40998

AI Score

6.9

Confidence

Low

SSVC

Exploitation

none

Automatable

no

Technical Impact

partial

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

ext4: fix uninitialized ratelimit_state->lock access in __ext4_fill_super()

In the following concurrency we will access the uninitialized rs->lock:

ext4_fill_super
ext4_register_sysfs
// sysfs registered msg_ratelimit_interval_ms
// Other processes modify rs->interval to
// non-zero via msg_ratelimit_interval_ms
ext4_orphan_cleanup
ext4_msg(sb, KERN_INFO, "Errors on filesystem, "
__ext4_msg
___ratelimit(&(EXT4_SB(sb)->s_msg_ratelimit_state)
if (!rs->interval) // do nothing if interval is 0
return 1;
raw_spin_trylock_irqsave(&rs->lock, flags)
raw_spin_trylock(lock)
_raw_spin_trylock
__raw_spin_trylock
spin_acquire(&lock->dep_map, 0, 1, RET_IP)
lock_acquire
__lock_acquire
register_lock_class
assign_lock_key
dump_stack();
ratelimit_state_init(&sbi->s_msg_ratelimit_state, 5 * HZ, 10);
raw_spin_lock_init(&rs->lock);
// init rs->lock here

and get the following dump_stack:

=========================================================
INFO: trying to register non-static key.
The code is fine but needs lockdep annotation, or maybe
you didn’t initialize this object before use?
turning off the locking correctness validator.
CPU: 12 PID: 753 Comm: mount Tainted: G E 6.7.0-rc6-next-20231222 #504
[…]
Call Trace:
dump_stack_lvl+0xc5/0x170
dump_stack+0x18/0x30
register_lock_class+0x740/0x7c0
__lock_acquire+0x69/0x13a0
lock_acquire+0x120/0x450
_raw_spin_trylock+0x98/0xd0
___ratelimit+0xf6/0x220
__ext4_msg+0x7f/0x160 [ext4]
ext4_orphan_cleanup+0x665/0x740 [ext4]
__ext4_fill_super+0x21ea/0x2b10 [ext4]
ext4_fill_super+0x14d/0x360 [ext4]
[…]

Normally interval is 0 until s_msg_ratelimit_state is initialized, so
___ratelimit() does nothing. But registering sysfs precedes initializing
rs->lock, so it is possible to change rs->interval to a non-zero value
via the msg_ratelimit_interval_ms interface of sysfs while rs->lock is
uninitialized, and then a call to ext4_msg triggers the problem by
accessing an uninitialized rs->lock. Therefore register sysfs after all
initializations are complete to avoid such problems.

AI Score

6.9

Confidence

Low

SSVC

Exploitation

none

Automatable

no

Technical Impact

partial