CVE-2024-56703 : Detail

CVE-2024-56703

7.5
/
High
0.01%V4
Network
2024-12-28
09h46 +00:00
2026-08-04
09h39 +00:00
Notifications for a CVE
Stay informed of any changes for a specific CVE.
Notifications manage

CVE Descriptions

ipv6: Fix soft lockups in fib6_select_path under high next hop churn

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ipv6: Fix soft lockups in fib6_select_path under high next hop churn Soft lockups have been observed on a cluster of Linux-based edge routers located in a highly dynamic environment. Using the `bird` service, these routers continuously update BGP-advertised routes due to frequently changing nexthop destinations, while also managing significant IPv6 traffic. The lockups occur during the traversal of the multipath circular linked-list in the `fib6_select_path` function, particularly while iterating through the siblings in the list. The issue typically arises when the nodes of the linked list are unexpectedly deleted concurrently on a different core—indicated by their 'next' and 'previous' elements pointing back to the node itself and their reference count dropping to zero. This results in an infinite loop, leading to a soft lockup that triggers a system panic via the watchdog timer. Apply RCU primitives in the problematic code sections to resolve the issue. Where necessary, update the references to fib6_siblings to annotate or use the RCU APIs. Include a test script that reproduces the issue. The script periodically updates the routing table while generating a heavy load of outgoing IPv6 traffic through multiple iperf3 clients. It consistently induces infinite soft lockups within a couple of minutes. Kernel log: 0 [ffffbd13003e8d30] machine_kexec at ffffffff8ceaf3eb 1 [ffffbd13003e8d90] __crash_kexec at ffffffff8d0120e3 2 [ffffbd13003e8e58] panic at ffffffff8cef65d4 3 [ffffbd13003e8ed8] watchdog_timer_fn at ffffffff8d05cb03 4 [ffffbd13003e8f08] __hrtimer_run_queues at ffffffff8cfec62f 5 [ffffbd13003e8f70] hrtimer_interrupt at ffffffff8cfed756 6 [ffffbd13003e8fd0] __sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt at ffffffff8cea01af 7 [ffffbd13003e8ff0] sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt at ffffffff8df1b83d -- -- 8 [ffffbd13003d3708] asm_sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt at ffffffff8e000ecb [exception RIP: fib6_select_path+299] RIP: ffffffff8ddafe7b RSP: ffffbd13003d37b8 RFLAGS: 00000287 RAX: ffff975850b43600 RBX: ffff975850b40200 RCX: 0000000000000000 RDX: 000000003fffffff RSI: 0000000051d383e4 RDI: ffff975850b43618 RBP: ffffbd13003d3800 R8: 0000000000000000 R9: ffff975850b40200 R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000000 R12: ffffbd13003d3830 R13: ffff975850b436a8 R14: ffff975850b43600 R15: 0000000000000007 ORIG_RAX: ffffffffffffffff CS: 0010 SS: 0018 9 [ffffbd13003d3808] ip6_pol_route at ffffffff8ddb030c 10 [ffffbd13003d3888] ip6_pol_route_input at ffffffff8ddb068c 11 [ffffbd13003d3898] fib6_rule_lookup at ffffffff8ddf02b5 12 [ffffbd13003d3928] ip6_route_input at ffffffff8ddb0f47 13 [ffffbd13003d3a18] ip6_rcv_finish_core.constprop.0 at ffffffff8dd950d0 14 [ffffbd13003d3a30] ip6_list_rcv_finish.constprop.0 at ffffffff8dd96274 15 [ffffbd13003d3a98] ip6_sublist_rcv at ffffffff8dd96474 16 [ffffbd13003d3af8] ipv6_list_rcv at ffffffff8dd96615 17 [ffffbd13003d3b60] __netif_receive_skb_list_core at ffffffff8dc16fec 18 [ffffbd13003d3be0] netif_receive_skb_list_internal at ffffffff8dc176b3 19 [ffffbd13003d3c50] napi_gro_receive at ffffffff8dc565b9 20 [ffffbd13003d3c80] ice_receive_skb at ffffffffc087e4f5 [ice] 21 [ffffbd13003d3c90] ice_clean_rx_irq at ffffffffc0881b80 [ice] 22 [ffffbd13003d3d20] ice_napi_poll at ffffffffc088232f [ice] 23 [ffffbd13003d3d80] __napi_poll at ffffffff8dc18000 24 [ffffbd13003d3db8] net_rx_action at ffffffff8dc18581 25 [ffffbd13003d3e40] __do_softirq at ffffffff8df352e9 26 [ffffbd13003d3eb0] run_ksoftirqd at ffffffff8ceffe47 27 [ffffbd13003d3ec0] smpboot_thread_fn at ffffffff8cf36a30 28 [ffffbd13003d3ee8] kthread at ffffffff8cf2b39f 29 [ffffbd13003d3f28] ret_from_fork at ffffffff8ce5fa64 30 [ffffbd13003d3f50] ret_from_fork_asm at ffffffff8ce03cbb

CVE Informations

Related Weaknesses

CWE-ID Weakness Name Source
CWE-835 Loop with Unreachable Exit Condition ('Infinite Loop')
The product contains an iteration or loop with an exit condition that cannot be reached, i.e., an infinite loop.

Metrics

Metrics Score Severity CVSS Vector Source
V3.1 7.5 HIGH CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/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.

Network

The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed “remotely exploitable” and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).

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.

None

The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.

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.

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) 4.15 To (excluding) 6.1.128

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.2 To (excluding) 6.6.75

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.7 To (excluding) 6.11.11

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.12 To (excluding) 6.12.2

References