CVE-2024-46755

Public on

Last Modified: UTC

ModerateModerate ImpactWhat does this mean?
DescriptionAdditional informationCVSS Score DetailsWeakness (CWE)FAQ

Description

The CVE Program describes this issue as:

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: wifi: mwifiex: Do not return unused priv in mwifiex_get_priv_by_id() mwifiex_get_priv_by_id() returns the priv pointer corresponding to the bss_num and bss_type, but without checking if the priv is actually currently in use. Unused priv pointers do not have a wiphy attached to them which can lead to NULL pointer dereferences further down the callstack. Fix this by returning only used priv pointers which have priv->bss_mode set to something else than NL80211_IFTYPE_UNSPECIFIED. Said NULL pointer dereference happened when an Accesspoint was started with wpa_supplicant -i mlan0 with this config: network={ ssid="somessid" mode=2 frequency=2412 key_mgmt=WPA-PSK WPA-PSK-SHA256 proto=RSN group=CCMP pairwise=CCMP psk="12345678" } When waiting for the AP to be established, interrupting wpa_supplicant with <ctrl-c> and starting it again this happens: | Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address 0000000000000140 | Mem abort info: | ESR = 0x0000000096000004 | EC = 0x25: DABT (current EL), IL = 32 bits | SET = 0, FnV = 0 | EA = 0, S1PTW = 0 | FSC = 0x04: level 0 translation fault | Data abort info: | ISV = 0, ISS = 0x00000004, ISS2 = 0x00000000 | CM = 0, WnR = 0, TnD = 0, TagAccess = 0 | GCS = 0, Overlay = 0, DirtyBit = 0, Xs = 0 | user pgtable: 4k pages, 48-bit VAs, pgdp=0000000046d96000 | [0000000000000140] pgd=0000000000000000, p4d=0000000000000000 | Internal error: Oops: 0000000096000004 [#1] PREEMPT SMP | Modules linked in: caam_jr caamhash_desc spidev caamalg_desc crypto_engine authenc libdes mwifiex_sdio +mwifiex crct10dif_ce cdc_acm onboard_usb_hub fsl_imx8_ddr_perf imx8m_ddrc rtc_ds1307 lm75 rtc_snvs +imx_sdma caam imx8mm_thermal spi_imx error imx_cpufreq_dt fuse ip_tables x_tables ipv6 | CPU: 0 PID: 8 Comm: kworker/0:1 Not tainted 6.9.0-00007-g937242013fce-dirty #18 | Hardware name: somemachine (DT) | Workqueue: events sdio_irq_work | pstate: 00000005 (nzcv daif -PAN -UAO -TCO -DIT -SSBS BTYPE=--) | pc : mwifiex_get_cfp+0xd8/0x15c [mwifiex] | lr : mwifiex_get_cfp+0x34/0x15c [mwifiex] | sp : ffff8000818b3a70 | x29: ffff8000818b3a70 x28: ffff000006bfd8a5 x27: 0000000000000004 | x26: 000000000000002c x25: 0000000000001511 x24: 0000000002e86bc9 | x23: ffff000006bfd996 x22: 0000000000000004 x21: ffff000007bec000 | x20: 000000000000002c x19: 0000000000000000 x18: 0000000000000000 | x17: 000000040044ffff x16: 00500072b5503510 x15: ccc283740681e517 | x14: 0201000101006d15 x13: 0000000002e8ff43 x12: 002c01000000ffb1 | x11: 0100000000000000 x10: 02e8ff43002c0100 x9 : 0000ffb100100157 | x8 : ffff000003d20000 x7 : 00000000000002f1 x6 : 00000000ffffe124 | x5 : 0000000000000001 x4 : 0000000000000003 x3 : 0000000000000000 | x2 : 0000000000000000 x1 : 0001000000011001 x0 : 0000000000000000 | Call trace: | mwifiex_get_cfp+0xd8/0x15c [mwifiex] | mwifiex_parse_single_response_buf+0x1d0/0x504 [mwifiex] | mwifiex_handle_event_ext_scan_report+0x19c/0x2f8 [mwifiex] | mwifiex_process_sta_event+0x298/0xf0c [mwifiex] | mwifiex_process_event+0x110/0x238 [mwifiex] | mwifiex_main_process+0x428/0xa44 [mwifiex] | mwifiex_sdio_interrupt+0x64/0x12c [mwifiex_sdio] | process_sdio_pending_irqs+0x64/0x1b8 | sdio_irq_work+0x4c/0x7c | process_one_work+0x148/0x2a0 | worker_thread+0x2fc/0x40c | kthread+0x110/0x114 | ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20 | Code: a94153f3 a8c37bfd d50323bf d65f03c0 (f940a000) | ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]---

Additional information

  • Bugzilla 2313103: kernel: wifi: mwifiex: Do not return unused priv in mwifiex_get_priv_by_id()
  • CWE-476: NULL Pointer Dereference
  • FAQ: Frequently asked questions about CVE-2024-46755

Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) Score Details

Important note

CVSS scores for open source components depend on vendor-specific factors (e.g. version or build chain). Therefore, Red Hat's score and impact rating can be different from NVD and other vendors. Red Hat remains the authoritative CVE Naming Authority (CNA) source for its products and services (see Red Hat classifications).

The following CVSS metrics and score provided are preliminary and subject to review.

CVSS v3 Score Breakdown
Red HatNVD

CVSS v3 Base Score

5.5

5.5

Attack Vector

Local

Local

Attack Complexity

Low

Low

Privileges Required

Low

Low

User Interaction

None

None

Scope

Unchanged

Unchanged

Confidentiality Impact

None

None

Integrity Impact

None

None

Availability Impact

High

High

CVSS v3 Vector

Red Hat: CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

NVD: CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

Frequently Asked Questions

Why is Red Hat's CVSS v3 score or Impact different from other vendors?

For open source software shipped by multiple vendors, the CVSS base scores may vary for each vendor's version depending on the version they ship, how they ship it, the platform, and even how the software is compiled. This makes scoring of vulnerabilities difficult for third-party vulnerability databases such as NVD that only provide a single CVSS base score for each vulnerability. Red Hat scores reflect how a vulnerability affects our products specifically.

For more information, see https://access.redhat.com/solutions/762393.

My product is listed as "Under investigation" or "Affected", when will Red Hat release a fix for this vulnerability?

  • "Under investigation" doesn't necessarily mean that the product is affected by this vulnerability. It only means that our Analysis Team is still working on determining whether the product is affected and how it is affected.
  • The term "Affected" means that our Analysis team has determined that this product, such as Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 or OpenShift Container Platform 4, is affected by this vulnerability and a fix may be released to address this issue in the near future. This includes all minor releases of this product unless noted otherwise in the Statement text.

What can I do if my product is listed as "Will not fix"?

A "will not fix" status means that a fix for an affected product version is not planned or not possible due to complexity, which may create additional risk.

Available options depend mostly on the Impact of the vulnerability and the current Life Cycle phase of your product. Overall, you have the following options:
  • Upgrade to a supported product version that includes a fix for this vulnerability (recommended).
  • Apply a mitigation (if one exists).
  • Open a support case to request a prioritization of releasing a fix for this vulnerability.

What can I do if my product is listed as "Fix deferred"?

A deferred status means that a fix for an affected product version is not guaranteed due to higher-priority development work.

Available options depend mostly on the Impact of the vulnerability and the current Life Cycle phase of your product. Overall, you have the following options:
  • Apply a mitigation (if one exists).
  • Open a support case to request a prioritization of releasing a fix for this vulnerability.
  • Red Hat Engineering focuses on addressing high-priority issues based on their complexity or limited lifecycle support. Therefore, lower-priority issues will not receive immediate fixes.

What is a mitigation?

A mitigation is an action that can be taken to reduce the impact of a security vulnerability, without deploying any fixes.

I have a Red Hat product but it is not in the above list, is it affected?

The listed products were found to include one or more of the components that this vulnerability affects. These products underwent a thorough evaluation to determine their affectedness by this vulnerability. Note that layered products (such as container-based offerings) that consume affected components from any of the products listed in this table may be affected and are not represented.

Why is my security scanner reporting my product as vulnerable to this vulnerability even though my product version is fixed or not affected?

In order to maintain code stability and compatibility, Red Hat usually does not rebase packages to entirely new versions. Instead, we backport fixes and new features to an older version of the package we distribute. This can result in some security scanners that only consider the package version to report the package as vulnerable. To avoid this, we suggest that you use an approved vulnerability scanner from our Red Hat Vulnerability Scanner Certification program.

Want to get errata notifications? Sign up here.