Deskripsi CVE

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: bpf: check_cond_jmp_op(): properly infer if register is null Nicholas Carlini reported a bug when verifier can incorrectly infer that a pointer is non-null. The bug occurs when two pointers are compared and one of them has a type w/o PTR_MAYBE_NULL flag, but which allows a value to be NULL at runtime. Here is an example: // `a` is PTR_TO_MEM | MEM_RDONLY | PTR_UNTRUSTED // `a` is 0 at runtime. // `b` is PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE | PTR_MAYBE_NULL void *a = bpf_rdonly_cast(0, 0); int *b = bpf_map_lookup_elem(...); if (a == b) *b = 42; // verifier does not catch null pointer dereference This happens because of a special case in check_cond_jmp_op(), which attempts to strip PTR_MAYBE_NULL flags from pointer types, when processing comparisons like `rA == rB`, if either rA or rB can't be null. The non-null property is derived based on the absence of PTR_MAYBE_NULL flag on rA's or rB's type. But that is not sufficient for types like PTR_TO_MEM, as in the example. This patch replaces type_may_be_null() call with reg_not_null(), which contains an allowlist of types for which absence of PTR_MAYBE_NULL actually means that the value can't be NULL at runtime. At the moment, the list in the reg_not_null() omits two types for which PTR_MAYBE_NULL is applicable: PTR_TO_XDP_SOCK and PTR_TO_BUF. In order to remain backward compatible, and assuming that only comparison between pointers of the same type makes sense, this commit extends reg_not_null(). W/o such an extension e.g. verifier_jeq_infer_not_null/null_ptr_to_map_value fails. reg_not_null() can be extended further, but I deem that out of scope for the fix at hand. Explicit base_type(...) != PTR_TO_BTF_ID checks in the check_cond_jmp_op() can be removed with migration to reg_not_null(), but that is a behavioural change, as the special case would start matching for PTR_TO_BTF_ID that is also is_trusted_reg(). I omit the behavioural change from this commit.

Informasi CVE

Kelemahan Terkait

CWE-ID	Nama Kelemahan	Sumber
CWE-476	NULL Pointer Dereference The product dereferences a pointer that it expects to be valid but is NULL.

Metrik

Metrik	Skor	Tingkat keparahan	CVSS Vektor	Sumber
V3.1	5.5	MEDIUM	CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H Informasi lebih lanjut 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