CVE Descriptions
mm: abort vma_modify() on merge out of memory failure
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm: abort vma_modify() on merge out of memory failure The remainder of vma_modify() relies upon the vmg state remaining pristine after a merge attempt. Usually this is the case, however in the one edge case scenario of a merge attempt failing not due to the specified range being unmergeable, but rather due to an out of memory error arising when attempting to commit the merge, this assumption becomes untrue. This results in vmg->start, end being modified, and thus the proceeding attempts to split the VMA will be done with invalid start/end values. Thankfully, it is likely practically impossible for us to hit this in reality, as it would require a maple tree node pre-allocation failure that would likely never happen due to it being 'too small to fail', i.e. the kernel would simply keep retrying reclaim until it succeeded. However, this scenario remains theoretically possible, and what we are doing here is wrong so we must correct it. The safest option is, when this scenario occurs, to simply give up the operation. If we cannot allocate memory to merge, then we cannot allocate memory to split either (perhaps moreso!). Any scenario where this would be happening would be under very extreme (likely fatal) memory pressure, so it's best we give up early. So there is no doubt it is appropriate to simply bail out in this scenario. However, in general we must if at all possible never assume VMG state is stable after a merge attempt, since merge operations update VMG fields. As a result, additionally also make this clear by storing start, end in local variables. The issue was reported originally by syzkaller, and by Brad Spengler (via an off-list discussion), and in both instances it manifested as a triggering of the assert: VM_WARN_ON_VMG(start >= end, vmg); In vma_merge_existing_range(). It seems at least one scenario in which this is occurring is one in which the merge being attempted is due to an madvise() across multiple VMAs which looks like this: start end |<------>| |----------|------| | vma | next | |----------|------| When madvise_walk_vmas() is invoked, we first find vma in the above (determining prev to be equal to vma as we are offset into vma), and then enter the loop. We determine the end of vma that forms part of the range we are madvise()'ing by setting 'tmp' to this value: /* Here vma->vm_start <= start < (end|vma->vm_end) */ tmp = vma->vm_end; We then invoke the madvise() operation via visit(), letting prev get updated to point to vma as part of the operation: /* Here vma->vm_start <= start < tmp <= (end|vma->vm_end). */ error = visit(vma, &prev, start, tmp, arg); Where the visit() function pointer in this instance is madvise_vma_behavior(). As observed in syzkaller reports, it is ultimately madvise_update_vma() that is invoked, calling vma_modify_flags_name() and vma_modify() in turn. Then, in vma_modify(), we attempt the merge: merged = vma_merge_existing_range(vmg); if (merged) return merged; We invoke this with vmg->start, end set to start, tmp as such: start tmp |<--->| |----------|------| | vma | next | |----------|------| We find ourselves in the merge right scenario, but the one in which we cannot remove the middle (we are offset into vma). Here we have a special case where vmg->start, end get set to perhaps unintuitive values - we intended to shrink the middle VMA and expand the next. This means vmg->start, end are set to... vma->vm_start, start. Now the commit_merge() fails, and vmg->start, end are left like this. This means we return to the rest of vma_modify() with vmg->start, end (here denoted as start', end') set as: start' end' |<-->| |----------|------| | vma | next | |----------|------| So we now erroneously try to split accordingly. This is where the unfortunate ---truncated---CVE Informations
Related Weaknesses
| Weakness Name | Source | |
|---|---|---|
| No informations. |
Metrics
| Metrics | Score | Severity | CVSS Vector | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| V3.1 | 7 | HIGH |
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/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. High successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. 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. |
|
| V3.1 | 5.5 | MEDIUM |
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/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. 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 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. |
nvd@nist.gov |
EPSS
EPSS Score
EPSS Percentile
Products Mentioned
Configuraton 0
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.12 To (excluding) 6.12.19
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.13 To (excluding) 6.13.7
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.14
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.14
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.14
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.14
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.14
