Vulnerabilities > CVE-2024-49993 - Improper Locking vulnerability in Linux Kernel

047910
CVSS 5.5 - MEDIUM
Attack vector
LOCAL
Attack complexity
LOW
Privileges required
LOW
Confidentiality impact
NONE
Integrity impact
NONE
Availability impact
HIGH
local
low complexity
linux
CWE-667

Summary

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: iommu/vt-d: Fix potential lockup if qi_submit_sync called with 0 count If qi_submit_sync() is invoked with 0 invalidation descriptors (for instance, for DMA draining purposes), we can run into a bug where a submitting thread fails to detect the completion of invalidation_wait. Subsequently, this led to a soft lockup. Currently, there is no impact by this bug on the existing users because no callers are submitting invalidations with 0 descriptors. This fix will enable future users (such as DMA drain) calling qi_submit_sync() with 0 count. Suppose thread T1 invokes qi_submit_sync() with non-zero descriptors, while concurrently, thread T2 calls qi_submit_sync() with zero descriptors. Both threads then enter a while loop, waiting for their respective descriptors to complete. T1 detects its completion (i.e., T1's invalidation_wait status changes to QI_DONE by HW) and proceeds to call reclaim_free_desc() to reclaim all descriptors, potentially including adjacent ones of other threads that are also marked as QI_DONE. During this time, while T2 is waiting to acquire the qi->q_lock, the IOMMU hardware may complete the invalidation for T2, setting its status to QI_DONE. However, if T1's execution of reclaim_free_desc() frees T2's invalidation_wait descriptor and changes its status to QI_FREE, T2 will not observe the QI_DONE status for its invalidation_wait and will indefinitely remain stuck. This soft lockup does not occur when only non-zero descriptors are submitted.In such cases, invalidation descriptors are interspersed among wait descriptors with the status QI_IN_USE, acting as barriers. These barriers prevent the reclaim code from mistakenly freeing descriptors belonging to other submitters. Considered the following example timeline: T1 T2 ======================================== ID1 WD1 while(WD1!=QI_DONE) unlock lock WD1=QI_DONE* WD2 while(WD2!=QI_DONE) unlock lock WD1==QI_DONE? ID1=QI_DONE WD2=DONE* reclaim() ID1=FREE WD1=FREE WD2=FREE unlock soft lockup! T2 never sees QI_DONE in WD2 Where: ID = invalidation descriptor WD = wait descriptor * Written by hardware The root of the problem is that the descriptor status QI_DONE flag is used for two conflicting purposes: 1. signal a descriptor is ready for reclaim (to be freed) 2. signal by the hardware that a wait descriptor is complete The solution (in this patch) is state separation by using QI_FREE flag for #1. Once a thread's invalidation descriptors are complete, their status would be set to QI_FREE. The reclaim_free_desc() function would then only free descriptors marked as QI_FREE instead of those marked as QI_DONE. This change ensures that T2 (from the previous example) will correctly observe the completion of its invalidation_wait (marked as QI_DONE).

Vulnerable Configurations

Part Description Count
OS
Linux
5480

Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE)

Common Attack Pattern Enumeration and Classification (CAPEC)

  • Leveraging Race Conditions
    This attack targets a race condition occurring when multiple processes access and manipulate the same resource concurrently and the outcome of the execution depends on the particular order in which the access takes place. The attacker can leverage a race condition by "running the race", modifying the resource and modifying the normal execution flow. For instance a race condition can occur while accessing a file, the attacker can trick the system by replacing the original file with his version and cause the system to read the malicious file.
  • Leveraging Race Conditions via Symbolic Links
    This attack leverages the use of symbolic links (Symlinks) in order to write to sensitive files. An attacker can create a Symlink link to a target file not otherwise accessible to her. When the privileged program tries to create a temporary file with the same name as the Symlink link, it will actually write to the target file pointed to by the attackers' Symlink link. If the attacker can insert malicious content in the temporary file she will be writing to the sensitive file by using the Symlink. The race occurs because the system checks if the temporary file exists, then creates the file. The attacker would typically create the Symlink during the interval between the check and the creation of the temporary file.