GHSA-RXWH-225R-76Q6

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-07-29 18:30 – Updated: 2024-07-30 21:31
VLAI
Details

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

ionic: use dev_consume_skb_any outside of napi

If we're not in a NAPI softirq context, we need to be careful about how we call napi_consume_skb(), specifically we need to call it with budget==0 to signal to it that we're not in a safe context.

This was found while running some configuration stress testing of traffic and a change queue config loop running, and this curious note popped out:

[ 4371.402645] BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible [00000000] code: ethtool/20545 [ 4371.402897] caller is napi_skb_cache_put+0x16/0x80 [ 4371.403120] CPU: 25 PID: 20545 Comm: ethtool Kdump: loaded Tainted: G OE 6.10.0-rc3-netnext+ #8 [ 4371.403302] Hardware name: HPE ProLiant DL360 Gen10/ProLiant DL360 Gen10, BIOS U32 01/23/2021 [ 4371.403460] Call Trace: [ 4371.403613] [ 4371.403758] dump_stack_lvl+0x4f/0x70 [ 4371.403904] check_preemption_disabled+0xc1/0xe0 [ 4371.404051] napi_skb_cache_put+0x16/0x80 [ 4371.404199] ionic_tx_clean+0x18a/0x240 [ionic] [ 4371.404354] ionic_tx_cq_service+0xc4/0x200 [ionic] [ 4371.404505] ionic_tx_flush+0x15/0x70 [ionic] [ 4371.404653] ? ionic_lif_qcq_deinit.isra.23+0x5b/0x70 [ionic] [ 4371.404805] ionic_txrx_deinit+0x71/0x190 [ionic] [ 4371.404956] ionic_reconfigure_queues+0x5f5/0xff0 [ionic] [ 4371.405111] ionic_set_ringparam+0x2e8/0x3e0 [ionic] [ 4371.405265] ethnl_set_rings+0x1f1/0x300 [ 4371.405418] ethnl_default_set_doit+0xbb/0x160 [ 4371.405571] genl_family_rcv_msg_doit+0xff/0x130 [...]

I found that ionic_tx_clean() calls napi_consume_skb() which calls napi_skb_cache_put(), but before that last call is the note / Zero budget indicate non-NAPI context called us, like netpoll / and DEBUG_NET_WARN_ON_ONCE(!in_softirq());

Those are pretty big hints that we're doing it wrong. We can pass a context hint down through the calls to let ionic_tx_clean() know what we're doing so it can call napi_consume_skb() correctly.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2024-42071"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-834"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2024-07-29T16:15:06Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:\n\nionic: use dev_consume_skb_any outside of napi\n\nIf we\u0027re not in a NAPI softirq context, we need to be careful\nabout how we call napi_consume_skb(), specifically we need to\ncall it with budget==0 to signal to it that we\u0027re not in a\nsafe context.\n\nThis was found while running some configuration stress testing\nof traffic and a change queue config loop running, and this\ncurious note popped out:\n\n[ 4371.402645] BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible [00000000] code: ethtool/20545\n[ 4371.402897] caller is napi_skb_cache_put+0x16/0x80\n[ 4371.403120] CPU: 25 PID: 20545 Comm: ethtool Kdump: loaded Tainted: G           OE      6.10.0-rc3-netnext+ #8\n[ 4371.403302] Hardware name: HPE ProLiant DL360 Gen10/ProLiant DL360 Gen10, BIOS U32 01/23/2021\n[ 4371.403460] Call Trace:\n[ 4371.403613]  \u003cTASK\u003e\n[ 4371.403758]  dump_stack_lvl+0x4f/0x70\n[ 4371.403904]  check_preemption_disabled+0xc1/0xe0\n[ 4371.404051]  napi_skb_cache_put+0x16/0x80\n[ 4371.404199]  ionic_tx_clean+0x18a/0x240 [ionic]\n[ 4371.404354]  ionic_tx_cq_service+0xc4/0x200 [ionic]\n[ 4371.404505]  ionic_tx_flush+0x15/0x70 [ionic]\n[ 4371.404653]  ? ionic_lif_qcq_deinit.isra.23+0x5b/0x70 [ionic]\n[ 4371.404805]  ionic_txrx_deinit+0x71/0x190 [ionic]\n[ 4371.404956]  ionic_reconfigure_queues+0x5f5/0xff0 [ionic]\n[ 4371.405111]  ionic_set_ringparam+0x2e8/0x3e0 [ionic]\n[ 4371.405265]  ethnl_set_rings+0x1f1/0x300\n[ 4371.405418]  ethnl_default_set_doit+0xbb/0x160\n[ 4371.405571]  genl_family_rcv_msg_doit+0xff/0x130\n\t[...]\n\nI found that ionic_tx_clean() calls napi_consume_skb() which calls\nnapi_skb_cache_put(), but before that last call is the note\n    /* Zero budget indicate non-NAPI context called us, like netpoll */\nand\n    DEBUG_NET_WARN_ON_ONCE(!in_softirq());\n\nThose are pretty big hints that we\u0027re doing it wrong.  We can pass a\ncontext hint down through the calls to let ionic_tx_clean() know what\nwe\u0027re doing so it can call napi_consume_skb() correctly.",
  "id": "GHSA-rxwh-225r-76q6",
  "modified": "2024-07-30T21:31:26Z",
  "published": "2024-07-29T18:30:40Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-42071"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/84b767f9e34fdb143c09e66a2a20722fc2921821"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/ef7646ed49fff962e97b276f4ab91327a67eeb5a"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}



Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.


Loading…

Loading…

Loading…

Forecast uses a logistic model when the trend is rising, or an exponential decay model when the trend is falling. Fitted via linearized least squares.

Sightings

Author Source Type Date Other

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
  • Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
  • Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.

Loading…

Loading…

Loading…

Related by attack behaviour

Vulnerabilities whose description is nearest to this one in the vector space of the CIRCL/vulnerability-attack-technique-biencoder model. This is a similarity search over the bi-encoder space (plain cosine), not a classification, and it has no measured accuracy.


Loading…