CVE-2022-49067
Descriptions du CVE
powerpc: Fix virt_addr_valid() for 64-bit Book3E & 32-bit
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: powerpc: Fix virt_addr_valid() for 64-bit Book3E & 32-bit mpe: On 64-bit Book3E vmalloc space starts at 0x8000000000000000. Because of the way __pa() works we have: __pa(0x8000000000000000) == 0, and therefore virt_to_pfn(0x8000000000000000) == 0, and therefore virt_addr_valid(0x8000000000000000) == true Which is wrong, virt_addr_valid() should be false for vmalloc space. In fact all vmalloc addresses that alias with a valid PFN will return true from virt_addr_valid(). That can cause bugs with hardened usercopy as described below by Kefeng Wang: When running ethtool eth0 on 64-bit Book3E, a BUG occurred: usercopy: Kernel memory exposure attempt detected from SLUB object not in SLUB page?! (offset 0, size 1048)! kernel BUG at mm/usercopy.c:99 ... usercopy_abort+0x64/0xa0 (unreliable) __check_heap_object+0x168/0x190 __check_object_size+0x1a0/0x200 dev_ethtool+0x2494/0x2b20 dev_ioctl+0x5d0/0x770 sock_do_ioctl+0xf0/0x1d0 sock_ioctl+0x3ec/0x5a0 __se_sys_ioctl+0xf0/0x160 system_call_exception+0xfc/0x1f0 system_call_common+0xf8/0x200 The code shows below, data = vzalloc(array_size(gstrings.len, ETH_GSTRING_LEN)); copy_to_user(useraddr, data, gstrings.len * ETH_GSTRING_LEN)) The data is alloced by vmalloc(), virt_addr_valid(ptr) will return true on 64-bit Book3E, which leads to the panic. As commit 4dd7554a6456 ("powerpc/64: Add VIRTUAL_BUG_ON checks for __va and __pa addresses") does, make sure the virt addr above PAGE_OFFSET in the virt_addr_valid() for 64-bit, also add upper limit check to make sure the virt is below high_memory. Meanwhile, for 32-bit PAGE_OFFSET is the virtual address of the start of lowmem, high_memory is the upper low virtual address, the check is suitable for 32-bit, this will fix the issue mentioned in commit 602946ec2f90 ("powerpc: Set max_mapnr correctly") too. On 32-bit there is a similar problem with high memory, that was fixed in commit 602946ec2f90 ("powerpc: Set max_mapnr correctly"), but that commit breaks highmem and needs to be reverted. We can't easily fix __pa(), we have code that relies on its current behaviour. So for now add extra checks to virt_addr_valid(). For 64-bit Book3S the extra checks are not necessary, the combination of virt_to_pfn() and pfn_valid() should yield the correct result, but they are harmless. [mpe: Add additional change log detail]Informations du CVE
Faiblesses connexes
| Nom de la faiblesse | Source | |
|---|---|---|
| No informations. |
Métriques
| Métriques | Score | Gravité | CVSS Vecteur | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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
Score EPSS
Percentile EPSS
Products Mentioned
Configuraton 0
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version To (excluding) 5.4.190
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.5 To (excluding) 5.10.111
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.11 To (excluding) 5.15.34
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.16 To (excluding) 5.16.20
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.17 To (excluding) 5.17.3
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 5.18
