CVE-2022-50650
00h00 +00:00
CVE 설명
bpf: Fix reference state management for synchronous callbacks
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: bpf: Fix reference state management for synchronous callbacks Currently, verifier verifies callback functions (sync and async) as if they will be executed once, (i.e. it explores execution state as if the function was being called once). The next insn to explore is set to start of subprog and the exit from nested frame is handled using curframe > 0 and prepare_func_exit. In case of async callback it uses a customized variant of push_stack simulating a kind of branch to set up custom state and execution context for the async callback. While this approach is simple and works when callback really will be executed only once, it is unsafe for all of our current helpers which are for_each style, i.e. they execute the callback multiple times. A callback releasing acquired references of the caller may do so multiple times, but currently verifier sees it as one call inside the frame, which then returns to caller. Hence, it thinks it released some reference that the cb e.g. got access through callback_ctx (register filled inside cb from spilled typed register on stack). Similarly, it may see that an acquire call is unpaired inside the callback, so the caller will copy the reference state of callback and then will have to release the register with new ref_obj_ids. But again, the callback may execute multiple times, but the verifier will only account for acquired references for a single symbolic execution of the callback, which will cause leaks. Note that for async callback case, things are different. While currently we have bpf_timer_set_callback which only executes it once, even for multiple executions it would be safe, as reference state is NULL and check_reference_leak would force program to release state before BPF_EXIT. The state is also unaffected by analysis for the caller frame. Hence async callback is safe. Since we want the reference state to be accessible, e.g. for pointers loaded from stack through callback_ctx's PTR_TO_STACK, we still have to copy caller's reference_state to callback's bpf_func_state, but we enforce that whatever references it adds to that reference_state has been released before it hits BPF_EXIT. This requires introducing a new callback_ref member in the reference state to distinguish between caller vs callee references. Hence, check_reference_leak now errors out if it sees we are in callback_fn and we have not released callback_ref refs. Since there can be multiple nested callbacks, like frame 0 -> cb1 -> cb2 etc. we need to also distinguish between whether this particular ref belongs to this callback frame or parent, and only error for our own, so we store state->frameno (which is always non-zero for callbacks). In short, callbacks can read parent reference_state, but cannot mutate it, to be able to use pointers acquired by the caller. They must only undo their changes (by releasing their own acquired_refs before BPF_EXIT) on top of caller reference_state before returning (at which point the caller and callback state will match anyway, so no need to copy it back to caller).CVE 정보
메트릭
| 메트릭 | 점수 | 심각도 | CVSS 벡터 | 출처 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| V3.1 | 7.8 | HIGH |
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
추가 정보
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. High There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server. Integrity Impact This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. High There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to 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. |
