CVE-2024-35932
CVE Descriptions
drm/vc4: don't check if plane->state->fb == state->fb
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: drm/vc4: don't check if plane->state->fb == state->fb Currently, when using non-blocking commits, we can see the following kernel warning: [ 110.908514] ------------[ cut here ]------------ [ 110.908529] refcount_t: underflow; use-after-free. [ 110.908620] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 1866 at lib/refcount.c:87 refcount_dec_not_one+0xb8/0xc0 [ 110.908664] Modules linked in: rfcomm snd_seq_dummy snd_hrtimer snd_seq snd_seq_device cmac algif_hash aes_arm64 aes_generic algif_skcipher af_alg bnep hid_logitech_hidpp vc4 brcmfmac hci_uart btbcm brcmutil bluetooth snd_soc_hdmi_codec cfg80211 cec drm_display_helper drm_dma_helper drm_kms_helper snd_soc_core snd_compress snd_pcm_dmaengine fb_sys_fops sysimgblt syscopyarea sysfillrect raspberrypi_hwmon ecdh_generic ecc rfkill libaes i2c_bcm2835 binfmt_misc joydev snd_bcm2835(C) bcm2835_codec(C) bcm2835_isp(C) v4l2_mem2mem videobuf2_dma_contig snd_pcm bcm2835_v4l2(C) raspberrypi_gpiomem bcm2835_mmal_vchiq(C) videobuf2_v4l2 snd_timer videobuf2_vmalloc videobuf2_memops videobuf2_common snd videodev vc_sm_cma(C) mc hid_logitech_dj uio_pdrv_genirq uio i2c_dev drm fuse dm_mod drm_panel_orientation_quirks backlight ip_tables x_tables ipv6 [ 110.909086] CPU: 0 PID: 1866 Comm: kodi.bin Tainted: G C 6.1.66-v8+ #32 [ 110.909104] Hardware name: Raspberry Pi 3 Model B Rev 1.2 (DT) [ 110.909114] pstate: 60000005 (nZCv daif -PAN -UAO -TCO -DIT -SSBS BTYPE=--) [ 110.909132] pc : refcount_dec_not_one+0xb8/0xc0 [ 110.909152] lr : refcount_dec_not_one+0xb4/0xc0 [ 110.909170] sp : ffffffc00913b9c0 [ 110.909177] x29: ffffffc00913b9c0 x28: 000000556969bbb0 x27: 000000556990df60 [ 110.909205] x26: 0000000000000002 x25: 0000000000000004 x24: ffffff8004448480 [ 110.909230] x23: ffffff800570b500 x22: ffffff802e03a7bc x21: ffffffecfca68c78 [ 110.909257] x20: ffffff8002b42000 x19: ffffff802e03a600 x18: 0000000000000000 [ 110.909283] x17: 0000000000000011 x16: ffffffffffffffff x15: 0000000000000004 [ 110.909308] x14: 0000000000000fff x13: ffffffed577e47e0 x12: 0000000000000003 [ 110.909333] x11: 0000000000000000 x10: 0000000000000027 x9 : c912d0d083728c00 [ 110.909359] x8 : c912d0d083728c00 x7 : 65646e75203a745f x6 : 746e756f63666572 [ 110.909384] x5 : ffffffed579f62ee x4 : ffffffed579eb01e x3 : 0000000000000000 [ 110.909409] x2 : 0000000000000000 x1 : ffffffc00913b750 x0 : 0000000000000001 [ 110.909434] Call trace: [ 110.909441] refcount_dec_not_one+0xb8/0xc0 [ 110.909461] vc4_bo_dec_usecnt+0x4c/0x1b0 [vc4] [ 110.909903] vc4_cleanup_fb+0x44/0x50 [vc4] [ 110.910315] drm_atomic_helper_cleanup_planes+0x88/0xa4 [drm_kms_helper] [ 110.910669] vc4_atomic_commit_tail+0x390/0x9dc [vc4] [ 110.911079] commit_tail+0xb0/0x164 [drm_kms_helper] [ 110.911397] drm_atomic_helper_commit+0x1d0/0x1f0 [drm_kms_helper] [ 110.911716] drm_atomic_commit+0xb0/0xdc [drm] [ 110.912569] drm_mode_atomic_ioctl+0x348/0x4b8 [drm] [ 110.913330] drm_ioctl_kernel+0xec/0x15c [drm] [ 110.914091] drm_ioctl+0x24c/0x3b0 [drm] [ 110.914850] __arm64_sys_ioctl+0x9c/0xd4 [ 110.914873] invoke_syscall+0x4c/0x114 [ 110.914897] el0_svc_common+0xd0/0x118 [ 110.914917] do_el0_svc+0x38/0xd0 [ 110.914936] el0_svc+0x30/0x8c [ 110.914958] el0t_64_sync_handler+0x84/0xf0 [ 110.914979] el0t_64_sync+0x18c/0x190 [ 110.914996] ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- This happens because, although `prepare_fb` and `cleanup_fb` are perfectly balanced, we cannot guarantee consistency in the check plane->state->fb == state->fb. This means that sometimes we can increase the refcount in `prepare_fb` and don't decrease it in `cleanup_fb`. The opposite can also be true. In fact, the struct drm_plane .state shouldn't be accessed directly but instead, the `drm_atomic_get_new_plane_state()` helper function should be used. So, we could stick to this check, but using `drm_atomic_get_new_plane_state()`. But actually, this check is not re ---truncated---CVE Informations
Related Weaknesses
| Weakness Name | Source | |
|---|---|---|
| Use After Free The product reuses or references memory after it has been freed. At some point afterward, the memory may be allocated again and saved in another pointer, while the original pointer references a location somewhere within the new allocation. Any operations using the original pointer are no longer valid because the memory "belongs" to the code that operates on the new pointer. |
Metrics
| Metrics | Score | Severity | CVSS Vector | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| V3.1 | 7.8 | HIGH |
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
More informations
Base: Exploitabilty MetricsThe Exploitability metrics reflect the characteristics of the thing that is vulnerable, which we refer to formally as the vulnerable component. Attack Vector This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. Local The vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities. Attack Complexity This metric describes the conditions beyond the attacker’s control that must exist in order to exploit the vulnerability. Low Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success when attacking the vulnerable component. Privileges Required This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess before successfully exploiting the vulnerability. Low The attacker requires privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources. User Interaction This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable component. None The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any user. Base: Scope MetricsThe Scope metric captures whether a vulnerability in one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope. Scope Formally, a security authority is a mechanism (e.g., an application, an operating system, firmware, a sandbox environment) that defines and enforces access control in terms of how certain subjects/actors (e.g., human users, processes) can access certain restricted objects/resources (e.g., files, CPU, memory) in a controlled manner. All the subjects and objects under the jurisdiction of a single security authority are considered to be under one security scope. If a vulnerability in a vulnerable component can affect a component which is in a different security scope than the vulnerable component, a Scope change occurs. Intuitively, whenever the impact of a vulnerability breaches a security/trust boundary and impacts components outside the security scope in which vulnerable component resides, a Scope change occurs. Unchanged An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority. Base: Impact MetricsThe Impact metrics capture the effects of a successfully exploited vulnerability on the component that suffers the worst outcome that is most directly and predictably associated with the attack. Analysts should constrain impacts to a reasonable, final outcome which they are confident an attacker is able to achieve. Confidentiality Impact This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information resources managed by a software component due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. High There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server. Integrity Impact This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. High There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component. Availability Impact This metric measures the impact to the availability of the impacted component resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. High There is a total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable). Temporal MetricsThe Temporal metrics measure the current state of exploit techniques or code availability, the existence of any patches or workarounds, or the confidence in the description of a vulnerability. Environmental MetricsThese metrics enable the analyst to customize the CVSS score depending on the importance of the affected IT asset to a user’s organization, measured in terms of Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability. |
EPSS
EPSS Score
EPSS Percentile
Products Mentioned
Configuraton 0
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version To (excluding) 6.1.86
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.2 To (excluding) 6.6.27
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.7 To (excluding) 6.8.6
