ghsa-rxwh-225r-76q6
Vulnerability from github
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]
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.
{
"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"
}
]
}
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.
- 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.