Loading HuntDB...

CVE-2023-52828

MEDIUM
Published 2024-05-21T15:31:31.501Z
Actions:

Expert Analysis

Professional remediation guidance

Get tailored security recommendations from our analyst team for CVE-2023-52828. We'll provide specific mitigation strategies based on your environment and risk profile.

CVSS Score

V3.1
6.6
/10
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:L
Base Score Metrics
Exploitability: N/A Impact: N/A

EPSS Score

v2023.03.01
0.000
probability
of exploitation in the wild

There is a 0.0% chance that this vulnerability will be exploited in the wild within the next 30 days.

Updated: 2025-01-25
Exploit Probability
Percentile: 0.124
Higher than 12.4% of all CVEs

Attack Vector Metrics

Attack Vector
LOCAL
Attack Complexity
LOW
Privileges Required
LOW
User Interaction
NONE
Scope
UNCHANGED

Impact Metrics

Confidentiality
HIGH
Integrity
LOW
Availability
LOW

Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

bpf: Detect IP == ksym.end as part of BPF program

Now that bpf_throw kfunc is the first such call instruction that has
noreturn semantics within the verifier, this also kicks in dead code
elimination in unprecedented ways. For one, any instruction following
a bpf_throw call will never be marked as seen. Moreover, if a callchain
ends up throwing, any instructions after the call instruction to the
eventually throwing subprog in callers will also never be marked as
seen.

The tempting way to fix this would be to emit extra 'int3' instructions
which bump the jited_len of a program, and ensure that during runtime
when a program throws, we can discover its boundaries even if the call
instruction to bpf_throw (or to subprogs that always throw) is emitted
as the final instruction in the program.

An example of such a program would be this:

do_something():
...
r0 = 0
exit

foo():
r1 = 0
call bpf_throw
r0 = 0
exit

bar(cond):
if r1 != 0 goto pc+2
call do_something
exit
call foo
r0 = 0 // Never seen by verifier
exit //

main(ctx):
r1 = ...
call bar
r0 = 0
exit

Here, if we do end up throwing, the stacktrace would be the following:

bpf_throw
foo
bar
main

In bar, the final instruction emitted will be the call to foo, as such,
the return address will be the subsequent instruction (which the JIT
emits as int3 on x86). This will end up lying outside the jited_len of
the program, thus, when unwinding, we will fail to discover the return
address as belonging to any program and end up in a panic due to the
unreliable stack unwinding of BPF programs that we never expect.

To remedy this case, make bpf_prog_ksym_find treat IP == ksym.end as
part of the BPF program, so that is_bpf_text_address returns true when
such a case occurs, and we are able to unwind reliably when the final
instruction ends up being a call instruction.

Available Exploits

No exploits available for this CVE.

Related News

No news articles found for this CVE.

Affected Products

GitHub Security Advisories

Community-driven vulnerability intelligence from GitHub

⚠ Unreviewed MODERATE

GHSA-6j2j-fwgf-fcf6

Advisory Details

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: bpf: Detect IP == ksym.end as part of BPF program Now that bpf_throw kfunc is the first such call instruction that has noreturn semantics within the verifier, this also kicks in dead code elimination in unprecedented ways. For one, any instruction following a bpf_throw call will never be marked as seen. Moreover, if a callchain ends up throwing, any instructions after the call instruction to the eventually throwing subprog in callers will also never be marked as seen. The tempting way to fix this would be to emit extra 'int3' instructions which bump the jited_len of a program, and ensure that during runtime when a program throws, we can discover its boundaries even if the call instruction to bpf_throw (or to subprogs that always throw) is emitted as the final instruction in the program. An example of such a program would be this: do_something(): ... r0 = 0 exit foo(): r1 = 0 call bpf_throw r0 = 0 exit bar(cond): if r1 != 0 goto pc+2 call do_something exit call foo r0 = 0 // Never seen by verifier exit // main(ctx): r1 = ... call bar r0 = 0 exit Here, if we do end up throwing, the stacktrace would be the following: bpf_throw foo bar main In bar, the final instruction emitted will be the call to foo, as such, the return address will be the subsequent instruction (which the JIT emits as int3 on x86). This will end up lying outside the jited_len of the program, thus, when unwinding, we will fail to discover the return address as belonging to any program and end up in a panic due to the unreliable stack unwinding of BPF programs that we never expect. To remedy this case, make bpf_prog_ksym_find treat IP == ksym.end as part of the BPF program, so that is_bpf_text_address returns true when such a case occurs, and we are able to unwind reliably when the final instruction ends up being a call instruction.

CVSS Scoring

CVSS Score

5.0

CVSS Vector

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

Advisory provided by GitHub Security Advisory Database. Published: May 21, 2024, Modified: November 5, 2024

References

Published: 2024-05-21T15:31:31.501Z
Last Modified: 2025-05-04T07:43:53.136Z
Copied to clipboard!