fkie_cve-2024-50195
Vulnerability from fkie_nvd
Published
2024-11-08 06:15
Modified
2025-11-03 23:17
Severity ?
5.5 (Medium) - CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
5.5 (Medium) - CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
5.5 (Medium) - CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Summary
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
posix-clock: Fix missing timespec64 check in pc_clock_settime()
As Andrew pointed out, it will make sense that the PTP core
checked timespec64 struct's tv_sec and tv_nsec range before calling
ptp->info->settime64().
As the man manual of clock_settime() said, if tp.tv_sec is negative or
tp.tv_nsec is outside the range [0..999,999,999], it should return EINVAL,
which include dynamic clocks which handles PTP clock, and the condition is
consistent with timespec64_valid(). As Thomas suggested, timespec64_valid()
only check the timespec is valid, but not ensure that the time is
in a valid range, so check it ahead using timespec64_valid_strict()
in pc_clock_settime() and return -EINVAL if not valid.
There are some drivers that use tp->tv_sec and tp->tv_nsec directly to
write registers without validity checks and assume that the higher layer
has checked it, which is dangerous and will benefit from this, such as
hclge_ptp_settime(), igb_ptp_settime_i210(), _rcar_gen4_ptp_settime(),
and some drivers can remove the checks of itself.
References
Impacted products
| Vendor | Product | Version | |
|---|---|---|---|
| linux | linux_kernel | * | |
| linux | linux_kernel | * | |
| linux | linux_kernel | * | |
| linux | linux_kernel | * | |
| linux | linux_kernel | * | |
| linux | linux_kernel | * | |
| linux | linux_kernel | * | |
| linux | linux_kernel | 6.12 | |
| linux | linux_kernel | 6.12 | |
| linux | linux_kernel | 6.12 |
{
"configurations": [
{
"nodes": [
{
"cpeMatch": [
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"matchCriteriaId": "5A3583A3-7039-4012-9458-F67912AED1CA",
"versionEndExcluding": "4.19.323",
"versionStartIncluding": "2.6.39",
"vulnerable": true
},
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"matchCriteriaId": "B5A89369-320F-47FC-8695-56F61F87E4C0",
"versionEndExcluding": "5.4.285",
"versionStartIncluding": "4.20",
"vulnerable": true
},
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"matchCriteriaId": "9062315F-AB89-4ABE-8C13-B75927689F66",
"versionEndExcluding": "5.10.228",
"versionStartIncluding": "5.5",
"vulnerable": true
},
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"matchCriteriaId": "18BEDAD6-86F8-457C-952F-C35698B3D07F",
"versionEndExcluding": "5.15.169",
"versionStartIncluding": "5.11",
"vulnerable": true
},
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"matchCriteriaId": "10FD2B3E-C7D9-4A9C-BD64-41877EDF88EB",
"versionEndExcluding": "6.1.114",
"versionStartIncluding": "5.16",
"vulnerable": true
},
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"matchCriteriaId": "6B9489BC-825E-4EEE-8D93-F93C801988C8",
"versionEndExcluding": "6.6.58",
"versionStartIncluding": "6.2",
"vulnerable": true
},
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"matchCriteriaId": "6E62D61A-F704-44DB-A311-17B7534DA7BC",
"versionEndExcluding": "6.11.5",
"versionStartIncluding": "6.7",
"vulnerable": true
},
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:6.12:rc1:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"matchCriteriaId": "7F361E1D-580F-4A2D-A509-7615F73167A1",
"vulnerable": true
},
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:6.12:rc2:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"matchCriteriaId": "925478D0-3E3D-4E6F-ACD5-09F28D5DF82C",
"vulnerable": true
},
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:6.12:rc3:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"matchCriteriaId": "3C95E234-D335-4B6C-96BF-E2CEBD8654ED",
"vulnerable": true
}
],
"negate": false,
"operator": "OR"
}
]
}
],
"cveTags": [],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:\n\nposix-clock: Fix missing timespec64 check in pc_clock_settime()\n\nAs Andrew pointed out, it will make sense that the PTP core\nchecked timespec64 struct\u0027s tv_sec and tv_nsec range before calling\nptp-\u003einfo-\u003esettime64().\n\nAs the man manual of clock_settime() said, if tp.tv_sec is negative or\ntp.tv_nsec is outside the range [0..999,999,999], it should return EINVAL,\nwhich include dynamic clocks which handles PTP clock, and the condition is\nconsistent with timespec64_valid(). As Thomas suggested, timespec64_valid()\nonly check the timespec is valid, but not ensure that the time is\nin a valid range, so check it ahead using timespec64_valid_strict()\nin pc_clock_settime() and return -EINVAL if not valid.\n\nThere are some drivers that use tp-\u003etv_sec and tp-\u003etv_nsec directly to\nwrite registers without validity checks and assume that the higher layer\nhas checked it, which is dangerous and will benefit from this, such as\nhclge_ptp_settime(), igb_ptp_settime_i210(), _rcar_gen4_ptp_settime(),\nand some drivers can remove the checks of itself."
},
{
"lang": "es",
"value": "En el kernel de Linux, se ha resuelto la siguiente vulnerabilidad: posix-clock: Arreglar la comprobaci\u00f3n timespec64 faltante en pc_clock_settime() Como se\u00f1al\u00f3 Andrew, tendr\u00e1 sentido que el n\u00facleo PTP comprobara el rango tv_sec y tv_nsec de la estructura timespec64 antes de llamar a ptp-\u0026gt;info-\u0026gt;settime64(). Como dec\u00eda el manual de manual de clock_settime(), si tp.tv_sec es negativo o tp.tv_nsec est\u00e1 fuera del rango [0..999,999,999], deber\u00eda devolver EINVAL, que incluye relojes din\u00e1micos que manejan el reloj PTP, y la condici\u00f3n es consistente con timespec64_valid(). Como sugiri\u00f3 Thomas, timespec64_valid() solo comprueba que el timespec sea v\u00e1lido, pero no garantiza que el tiempo est\u00e9 en un rango v\u00e1lido, as\u00ed que compru\u00e9belo con antelaci\u00f3n usando timespec64_valid_strict() en pc_clock_settime() y devuelva -EINVAL si no es v\u00e1lido. Hay algunos controladores que usan tp-\u0026gt;tv_sec y tp-\u0026gt;tv_nsec directamente para escribir registros sin comprobaciones de validez y asumen que la capa superior lo ha comprobado, lo cual es peligroso y se beneficiar\u00e1 de esto, como hclge_ptp_settime(), igb_ptp_settime_i210(), _rcar_gen4_ptp_settime(), y algunos controladores pueden eliminar las comprobaciones de s\u00ed mismos."
}
],
"id": "CVE-2024-50195",
"lastModified": "2025-11-03T23:17:00.873",
"metrics": {
"cvssMetricV31": [
{
"cvssData": {
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackVector": "LOCAL",
"availabilityImpact": "HIGH",
"baseScore": 5.5,
"baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
"confidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"integrityImpact": "NONE",
"privilegesRequired": "LOW",
"scope": "UNCHANGED",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"version": "3.1"
},
"exploitabilityScore": 1.8,
"impactScore": 3.6,
"source": "nvd@nist.gov",
"type": "Primary"
},
{
"cvssData": {
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackVector": "LOCAL",
"availabilityImpact": "HIGH",
"baseScore": 5.5,
"baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
"confidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"integrityImpact": "NONE",
"privilegesRequired": "LOW",
"scope": "UNCHANGED",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"version": "3.1"
},
"exploitabilityScore": 1.8,
"impactScore": 3.6,
"source": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"type": "Secondary"
}
]
},
"published": "2024-11-08T06:15:16.280",
"references": [
{
"source": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
"tags": [
"Patch"
],
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/1ff7247101af723731ea42ed565d54fb8f341264"
},
{
"source": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
"tags": [
"Patch"
],
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/27abbde44b6e71ee3891de13e1a228aa7ce95bfe"
},
{
"source": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
"tags": [
"Patch"
],
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/29f085345cde24566efb751f39e5d367c381c584"
},
{
"source": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
"tags": [
"Patch"
],
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/673a1c5a2998acbd429d6286e6cad10f17f4f073"
},
{
"source": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
"tags": [
"Patch"
],
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/a3f169e398215e71361774d13bf91a0101283ac2"
},
{
"source": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
"tags": [
"Patch"
],
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/c8789fbe2bbf75845e45302cba6ffa44e1884d01"
},
{
"source": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
"tags": [
"Patch"
],
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/d8794ac20a299b647ba9958f6d657051fc51a540"
},
{
"source": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
"tags": [
"Patch"
],
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/e0c966bd3e31911b57ef76cec4c5796ebd88e512"
},
{
"source": "af854a3a-2127-422b-91ae-364da2661108",
"url": "https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2025/01/msg00001.html"
},
{
"source": "af854a3a-2127-422b-91ae-364da2661108",
"url": "https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2025/03/msg00002.html"
}
],
"sourceIdentifier": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
"vulnStatus": "Modified",
"weaknesses": [
{
"description": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "CWE-754"
}
],
"source": "nvd@nist.gov",
"type": "Primary"
},
{
"description": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "CWE-754"
}
],
"source": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"type": "Secondary"
}
]
}
Loading…
Loading…
Sightings
| Author | Source | Type | Date |
|---|
Nomenclature
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or seen somewhere by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability is confirmed from an analyst perspective.
- Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
- Exploited: This vulnerability was exploited and seen by the user reporting the sighting.
- Patched: This vulnerability was successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.
- Not exploited: This vulnerability was not exploited or seen by the user reporting the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expresses doubt about the veracity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: This vulnerability was not successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.
Loading…
Loading…