[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2024071252-CVE-2024-40998-90d6@gregkh>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2024 14:38:02 +0200
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: linux-cve-announce@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: CVE-2024-40998: ext4: fix uninitialized ratelimit_state->lock access in __ext4_fill_super()
Description
===========
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.
The Linux kernel CVE team has assigned CVE-2024-40998 to this issue.
Affected and fixed versions
===========================
Fixed in 6.6.36 with commit 23afcd52af06
Fixed in 6.9.7 with commit 645267906944
Fixed in 6.10-rc1 with commit b4b4fda34e53
Please see https://www.kernel.org for a full list of currently supported
kernel versions by the kernel community.
Unaffected versions might change over time as fixes are backported to
older supported kernel versions. The official CVE entry at
https://cve.org/CVERecord/?id=CVE-2024-40998
will be updated if fixes are backported, please check that for the most
up to date information about this issue.
Affected files
==============
The file(s) affected by this issue are:
fs/ext4/super.c
Mitigation
==========
The Linux kernel CVE team recommends that you update to the latest
stable kernel version for this, and many other bugfixes. Individual
changes are never tested alone, but rather are part of a larger kernel
release. Cherry-picking individual commits is not recommended or
supported by the Linux kernel community at all. If however, updating to
the latest release is impossible, the individual changes to resolve this
issue can be found at these commits:
https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/23afcd52af06880c6c913a0ad99022b8937b575c
https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/645267906944a9aeec9d5c56ee24a9096a288798
https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/b4b4fda34e535756f9e774fb2d09c4537b7dfd1c
Powered by blists - more mailing lists