CVE-2024-57999 : Detail

CVE-2024-57999

8.8
/
High
0.01%V4
Local
2025-02-27
02h07 +00:00
2026-08-04
09h41 +00:00
Notifications for a CVE
Stay informed of any changes for a specific CVE.
Notifications manage

CVE Descriptions

powerpc/pseries/iommu: IOMMU incorrectly marks MMIO range in DDW

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: powerpc/pseries/iommu: IOMMU incorrectly marks MMIO range in DDW Power Hypervisor can possibily allocate MMIO window intersecting with Dynamic DMA Window (DDW) range, which is over 32-bit addressing. These MMIO pages needs to be marked as reserved so that IOMMU doesn't map DMA buffers in this range. The current code is not marking these pages correctly which is resulting in LPAR to OOPS while booting. The stack is at below BUG: Unable to handle kernel data access on read at 0xc00800005cd40000 Faulting instruction address: 0xc00000000005cdac Oops: Kernel access of bad area, sig: 11 [#1] LE PAGE_SIZE=64K MMU=Hash SMP NR_CPUS=2048 NUMA pSeries Modules linked in: af_packet rfkill ibmveth(X) lpfc(+) nvmet_fc nvmet nvme_keyring crct10dif_vpmsum nvme_fc nvme_fabrics nvme_core be2net(+) nvme_auth rtc_generic nfsd auth_rpcgss nfs_acl lockd grace sunrpc fuse configfs ip_tables x_tables xfs libcrc32c dm_service_time ibmvfc(X) scsi_transport_fc vmx_crypto gf128mul crc32c_vpmsum dm_mirror dm_region_hash dm_log dm_multipath dm_mod sd_mod scsi_dh_emc scsi_dh_rdac scsi_dh_alua t10_pi crc64_rocksoft_generic crc64_rocksoft sg crc64 scsi_mod Supported: Yes, External CPU: 8 PID: 241 Comm: kworker/8:1 Kdump: loaded Not tainted 6.4.0-150600.23.14-default #1 SLE15-SP6 b44ee71c81261b9e4bab5e0cde1f2ed891d5359b Hardware name: IBM,9080-M9S POWER9 (raw) 0x4e2103 0xf000005 of:IBM,FW950.B0 (VH950_149) hv:phyp pSeries Workqueue: events work_for_cpu_fn NIP: c00000000005cdac LR: c00000000005e830 CTR: 0000000000000000 REGS: c00001400c9ff770 TRAP: 0300 Not tainted (6.4.0-150600.23.14-default) MSR: 800000000280b033 CR: 24228448 XER: 00000001 CFAR: c00000000005cdd4 DAR: c00800005cd40000 DSISR: 40000000 IRQMASK: 0 GPR00: c00000000005e830 c00001400c9ffa10 c000000001987d00 c00001400c4fe800 GPR04: 0000080000000000 0000000000000001 0000000004000000 0000000000800000 GPR08: 0000000004000000 0000000000000001 c00800005cd40000 ffffffffffffffff GPR12: 0000000084228882 c00000000a4c4f00 0000000000000010 0000080000000000 GPR16: c00001400c4fe800 0000000004000000 0800000000000000 c00000006088b800 GPR20: c00001401a7be980 c00001400eff3800 c000000002a2da68 000000000000002b GPR24: c0000000026793a8 c000000002679368 000000000000002a c0000000026793c8 GPR28: 000008007effffff 0000080000000000 0000000000800000 c00001400c4fe800 NIP [c00000000005cdac] iommu_table_reserve_pages+0xac/0x100 LR [c00000000005e830] iommu_init_table+0x80/0x1e0 Call Trace: [c00001400c9ffa10] [c00000000005e810] iommu_init_table+0x60/0x1e0 (unreliable) [c00001400c9ffa90] [c00000000010356c] iommu_bypass_supported_pSeriesLP+0x9cc/0xe40 [c00001400c9ffc30] [c00000000005c300] dma_iommu_dma_supported+0xf0/0x230 [c00001400c9ffcb0] [c00000000024b0c4] dma_supported+0x44/0x90 [c00001400c9ffcd0] [c00000000024b14c] dma_set_mask+0x3c/0x80 [c00001400c9ffd00] [c0080000555b715c] be_probe+0xc4/0xb90 [be2net] [c00001400c9ffdc0] [c000000000986f3c] local_pci_probe+0x6c/0x110 [c00001400c9ffe40] [c000000000188f28] work_for_cpu_fn+0x38/0x60 [c00001400c9ffe70] [c00000000018e454] process_one_work+0x314/0x620 [c00001400c9fff10] [c00000000018f280] worker_thread+0x2b0/0x620 [c00001400c9fff90] [c00000000019bb18] kthread+0x148/0x150 [c00001400c9fffe0] [c00000000000ded8] start_kernel_thread+0x14/0x18 There are 2 issues in the code 1. The index is "int" while the address is "unsigned long". This results in negative value when setting the bitmap. 2. The DMA offset is page shifted but the MMIO range is used as-is (64-bit address). MMIO address needs to be page shifted as well.

CVE Informations

Related Weaknesses

CWE-ID Weakness Name Source
CWE Other No informations.

Metrics

Metrics Score Severity CVSS Vector Source
V3.1 8.8 HIGH CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H

Base: Exploitabilty Metrics

The 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 Metrics

The 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.

Changed

An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.

Base: Impact Metrics

The 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 Metrics

The 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 Metrics

These 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.

V3.1 5.5 MEDIUM CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

Base: Exploitabilty Metrics

The 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 Metrics

The 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 Metrics

The 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.

None

There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.

Integrity Impact

This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information.

None

There is no loss of integrity within 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 Metrics

The 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 Metrics

These 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.

nvd@nist.gov

EPSS

EPSS is a scoring model that predicts the likelihood of a vulnerability being exploited.

EPSS Score

The EPSS model produces a probability score between 0 and 1 (0 and 100%). The higher the score, the greater the probability that a vulnerability will be exploited.

EPSS Percentile

The percentile is used to rank CVE according to their EPSS score. For example, a CVE in the 95th percentile according to its EPSS score is more likely to be exploited than 95% of other CVE. Thus, the percentile is used to compare the EPSS score of a CVE with that of other CVE.

Products Mentioned

Configuraton 0

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.15 To (excluding) 6.12.13

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.13 To (excluding) 6.13.2

References