CVE-2024-57974
CVE Descriptions
udp: Deal with race between UDP socket address change and rehash
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: udp: Deal with race between UDP socket address change and rehash If a UDP socket changes its local address while it's receiving datagrams, as a result of connect(), there is a period during which a lookup operation might fail to find it, after the address is changed but before the secondary hash (port and address) and the four-tuple hash (local and remote ports and addresses) are updated. Secondary hash chains were introduced by commit 30fff9231fad ("udp: bind() optimisation") and, as a result, a rehash operation became needed to make a bound socket reachable again after a connect(). This operation was introduced by commit 719f835853a9 ("udp: add rehash on connect()") which isn't however a complete fix: the socket will be found once the rehashing completes, but not while it's pending. This is noticeable with a socat(1) server in UDP4-LISTEN mode, and a client sending datagrams to it. After the server receives the first datagram (cf. _xioopen_ipdgram_listen()), it issues a connect() to the address of the sender, in order to set up a directed flow. Now, if the client, running on a different CPU thread, happens to send a (subsequent) datagram while the server's socket changes its address, but is not rehashed yet, this will result in a failed lookup and a port unreachable error delivered to the client, as apparent from the following reproducer: LEN=$(($(cat /proc/sys/net/core/wmem_default) / 4)) dd if=/dev/urandom bs=1 count=${LEN} of=tmp.in while :; do taskset -c 1 socat UDP4-LISTEN:1337,null-eof OPEN:tmp.out,create,trunc & sleep 0.1 || sleep 1 taskset -c 2 socat OPEN:tmp.in UDP4:localhost:1337,shut-null wait done where the client will eventually get ECONNREFUSED on a write() (typically the second or third one of a given iteration): 2024/11/13 21:28:23 socat[46901] E write(6, 0x556db2e3c000, 8192): Connection refused This issue was first observed as a seldom failure in Podman's tests checking UDP functionality while using pasta(1) to connect the container's network namespace, which leads us to a reproducer with the lookup error resulting in an ICMP packet on a tap device: LOCAL_ADDR="$(ip -j -4 addr show|jq -rM '.[] | .addr_info[0] | select(.scope == "global").local')" while :; do ./pasta --config-net -p pasta.pcap -u 1337 socat UDP4-LISTEN:1337,null-eof OPEN:tmp.out,create,trunc & sleep 0.2 || sleep 1 socat OPEN:tmp.in UDP4:${LOCAL_ADDR}:1337,shut-null wait cmp tmp.in tmp.out done Once this fails: tmp.in tmp.out differ: char 8193, line 29 we can finally have a look at what's going on: $ tshark -r pasta.pcap 1 0.000000 :: ? ff02::16 ICMPv6 110 Multicast Listener Report Message v2 2 0.168690 88.198.0.161 ? 88.198.0.164 UDP 8234 60260 ? 1337 Len=8192 3 0.168767 88.198.0.161 ? 88.198.0.164 UDP 8234 60260 ? 1337 Len=8192 4 0.168806 88.198.0.161 ? 88.198.0.164 UDP 8234 60260 ? 1337 Len=8192 5 0.168827 c6:47:05:8d:dc:04 ? Broadcast ARP 42 Who has 88.198.0.161? Tell 88.198.0.164 6 0.168851 9a:55:9a:55:9a:55 ? c6:47:05:8d:dc:04 ARP 42 88.198.0.161 is at 9a:55:9a:55:9a:55 7 0.168875 88.198.0.161 ? 88.198.0.164 UDP 8234 60260 ? 1337 Len=8192 8 0.168896 88.198.0.164 ? 88.198.0.161 ICMP 590 Destination unreachable (Port unreachable) 9 0.168926 88.198.0.161 ? 88.198.0.164 UDP 8234 60260 ? 1337 Len=8192 10 0.168959 88.198.0.161 ? 88.198.0.164 UDP 8234 60260 ? 1337 Len=8192 11 0.168989 88.198.0.161 ? 88.198.0.164 UDP 4138 60260 ? 1337 Len=4096 12 0.169010 88.198.0.161 ? 88.198.0.164 UDP 42 60260 ? 1337 Len=0 On the third datagram received, the network namespace of the container initiates an ARP lookup to deliver the ICMP message. In another variant of this reproducer, starting the client with: strace -f pasta --config-net -u 1337 socat UDP4-LISTEN:1337,null-eof OPEN:tmp.out,create,tru ---truncated---CVE Informations
Related Weaknesses
| Weakness Name | Source | |
|---|---|---|
| Concurrent Execution using Shared Resource with Improper Synchronization ('Race Condition') The product contains a concurrent code sequence that requires temporary, exclusive access to a shared resource, but a timing window exists in which the shared resource can be modified by another code sequence operating concurrently. |
Metrics
| Metrics | Score | Severity | CVSS Vector | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| V3.1 | 4.7 | MEDIUM |
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/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. 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. 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) 2.6.33 To (excluding) 6.12.13
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.13 To (excluding) 6.13.2
