CVE-2024-49878
Description
From CVE.org
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: resource: fix region_intersects() vs add_memory_driver_managed() On a system with CXL memory, the resource tree (/proc/iomem) related to CXL memory may look like something as follows. 490000000-50fffffff : CXL Window 0 490000000-50fffffff : region0 490000000-50fffffff : dax0.0 490000000-50fffffff : System RAM (kmem) Because drivers/dax/kmem.c calls add_memory_driver_managed() during onlining CXL memory, which makes "System RAM (kmem)" a descendant of "CXL Window X". This confuses region_intersects(), which expects all "System RAM" resources to be at the top level of iomem_resource. This can lead to bugs. For example, when the following command line is executed to write some memory in CXL memory range via /dev/mem, $ dd if=data of=/dev/mem bs=$((1 << 10)) seek=$((0x490000000 >> 10)) count=1 dd: error writing '/dev/mem': Bad address 1+0 records in 0+0 records out 0 bytes copied, 0.0283507 s, 0.0 kB/s the command fails as expected. However, the error code is wrong. It should be "Operation not permitted" instead of "Bad address". More seriously, the /dev/mem permission checking in devmem_is_allowed() passes incorrectly. Although the accessing is prevented later because ioremap() isn't allowed to map system RAM, it is a potential security issue. During command executing, the following warning is reported in the kernel log for calling ioremap() on system RAM. ioremap on RAM at 0x0000000490000000 - 0x0000000490000fff WARNING: CPU: 2 PID: 416 at arch/x86/mm/ioremap.c:216 __ioremap_caller.constprop.0+0x131/0x35d Call Trace: memremap+0xcb/0x184 xlate_dev_mem_ptr+0x25/0x2f write_mem+0x94/0xfb vfs_write+0x128/0x26d ksys_write+0xac/0xfe do_syscall_64+0x9a/0xfd entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x4b/0x53 The details of command execution process are as follows. In the above resource tree, "System RAM" is a descendant of "CXL Window 0" instead of a top level resource. So, region_intersects() will report no System RAM resources in the CXL memory region incorrectly, because it only checks the top level resources. Consequently, devmem_is_allowed() will return 1 (allow access via /dev/mem) for CXL memory region incorrectly. Fortunately, ioremap() doesn't allow to map System RAM and reject the access. So, region_intersects() needs to be fixed to work correctly with the resource tree with "System RAM" not at top level as above. To fix it, if we found a unmatched resource in the top level, we will continue to search matched resources in its descendant resources. So, we will not miss any matched resources in resource tree anymore. In the new implementation, an example resource tree |------------- "CXL Window 0" ------------| |-- "System RAM" --| will behave similar as the following fake resource tree for region_intersects(, IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM, ), |-- "System RAM" --||-- "CXL Window 0a" --| Where "CXL Window 0a" is part of the original "CXL Window 0" that isn't covered by "System RAM".
Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) Score Details
Info alert: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).
CVSS v3 Score Breakdown
| Red Hat | NVD | cve.org | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Base Score | 5.5 | 5.5 | N/A |
| Attack Vector | Local | Local | N/A |
| Attack Complexity | Low | Low | N/A |
| Privileges Required | Low | Low | N/A |
| User Interaction | None | None | N/A |
| Scope | Unchanged | Unchanged | N/A |
| Confidentiality | None | None | N/A |
| Integrity Impact | None | None | N/A |
| Availability Impact | High | High | N/A |
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
Understanding the Weakness (CWE)
Confidentiality
Technical Impact: Read Files or Directories; Read Application Data
Sensitive data may be exposed to an unauthorized actor in another control sphere. This may have a wide range of secondary consequences that will depend on what data is exposed. One possibility is the exposure of system data - such as file locations, software versions, or device data - that allow an attacker to craft a specific, more effective attack. Alternately, insufficient redaction of Private Personal Information (PPI), Personally Identifiable Information (PII), or other types of information might not harm the secure operation of the product itself, but could be violations of expectations by the product's users.
Frequently Asked Questions
Not sure what something means? Check out our Security Glossary.
Want to get errata notifications? Sign up here.