CVE-2022-49520
Descriptions du CVE
arm64: compat: Do not treat syscall number as ESR_ELx for a bad syscall
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: arm64: compat: Do not treat syscall number as ESR_ELx for a bad syscall If a compat process tries to execute an unknown system call above the __ARM_NR_COMPAT_END number, the kernel sends a SIGILL signal to the offending process. Information about the error is printed to dmesg in compat_arm_syscall() -> arm64_notify_die() -> arm64_force_sig_fault() -> arm64_show_signal(). arm64_show_signal() interprets a non-zero value for current->thread.fault_code as an exception syndrome and displays the message associated with the ESR_ELx.EC field (bits 31:26). current->thread.fault_code is set in compat_arm_syscall() -> arm64_notify_die() with the bad syscall number instead of a valid ESR_ELx value. This means that the ESR_ELx.EC field has the value that the user set for the syscall number and the kernel can end up printing bogus exception messages*. For example, for the syscall number 0x68000000, which evaluates to ESR_ELx.EC value of 0x1A (ESR_ELx_EC_FPAC) the kernel prints this error: [ 18.349161] syscall[300]: unhandled exception: ERET/ERETAA/ERETAB, ESR 0x68000000, Oops - bad compat syscall(2) in syscall[10000+50000] [ 18.350639] CPU: 2 PID: 300 Comm: syscall Not tainted 5.18.0-rc1 #79 [ 18.351249] Hardware name: Pine64 RockPro64 v2.0 (DT) [..] which is misleading, as the bad compat syscall has nothing to do with pointer authentication. Stop arm64_show_signal() from printing exception syndrome information by having compat_arm_syscall() set the ESR_ELx value to 0, as it has no meaning for an invalid system call number. The example above now becomes: [ 19.935275] syscall[301]: unhandled exception: Oops - bad compat syscall(2) in syscall[10000+50000] [ 19.936124] CPU: 1 PID: 301 Comm: syscall Not tainted 5.18.0-rc1-00005-g7e08006d4102 #80 [ 19.936894] Hardware name: Pine64 RockPro64 v2.0 (DT) [..] which although shows less information because the syscall number, wrongfully advertised as the ESR value, is missing, it is better than showing plainly wrong information. The syscall number can be easily obtained with strace. *A 32-bit value above or equal to 0x8000_0000 is interpreted as a negative integer in compat_arm_syscal() and the condition scno < __ARM_NR_COMPAT_END evaluates to true; the syscall will exit to userspace in this case with the ENOSYS error code instead of arm64_notify_die() being called.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) 5.4.198
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.5 To (excluding) 5.10.121
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.11 To (excluding) 5.15.46
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.16 To (excluding) 5.17.14
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.18 To (excluding) 5.18.3
