CVE-2023-52845

Public on

Last Modified: UTC

Low Low Impact What does this mean?
4.4 CVSS v3 Base Score

Description

The MITRE CVE dictionary describes this issue as

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: tipc: Change nla_policy for bearer-related names to NLA_NUL_STRING syzbot reported the following uninit-value access issue [1]: ===================================================== BUG: KMSAN: uninit-value in strlen lib/string.c:418 [inline] BUG: KMSAN: uninit-value in strstr+0xb8/0x2f0 lib/string.c:756 strlen lib/string.c:418 [inline] strstr+0xb8/0x2f0 lib/string.c:756 tipc_nl_node_reset_link_stats+0x3ea/0xb50 net/tipc/node.c:2595 genl_family_rcv_msg_doit net/netlink/genetlink.c:971 [inline] genl_family_rcv_msg net/netlink/genetlink.c:1051 [inline] genl_rcv_msg+0x11ec/0x1290 net/netlink/genetlink.c:1066 netlink_rcv_skb+0x371/0x650 net/netlink/af_netlink.c:2545 genl_rcv+0x40/0x60 net/netlink/genetlink.c:1075 netlink_unicast_kernel net/netlink/af_netlink.c:1342 [inline] netlink_unicast+0xf47/0x1250 net/netlink/af_netlink.c:1368 netlink_sendmsg+0x1238/0x13d0 net/netlink/af_netlink.c:1910 sock_sendmsg_nosec net/socket.c:730 [inline] sock_sendmsg net/socket.c:753 [inline] ____sys_sendmsg+0x9c2/0xd60 net/socket.c:2541 ___sys_sendmsg+0x28d/0x3c0 net/socket.c:2595 __sys_sendmsg net/socket.c:2624 [inline] __do_sys_sendmsg net/socket.c:2633 [inline] __se_sys_sendmsg net/socket.c:2631 [inline] __x64_sys_sendmsg+0x307/0x490 net/socket.c:2631 do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:50 [inline] do_syscall_64+0x41/0xc0 arch/x86/entry/common.c:80 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd Uninit was created at: slab_post_alloc_hook+0x12f/0xb70 mm/slab.h:767 slab_alloc_node mm/slub.c:3478 [inline] kmem_cache_alloc_node+0x577/0xa80 mm/slub.c:3523 kmalloc_reserve+0x13d/0x4a0 net/core/skbuff.c:559 __alloc_skb+0x318/0x740 net/core/skbuff.c:650 alloc_skb include/linux/skbuff.h:1286 [inline] netlink_alloc_large_skb net/netlink/af_netlink.c:1214 [inline] netlink_sendmsg+0xb34/0x13d0 net/netlink/af_netlink.c:1885 sock_sendmsg_nosec net/socket.c:730 [inline] sock_sendmsg net/socket.c:753 [inline] ____sys_sendmsg+0x9c2/0xd60 net/socket.c:2541 ___sys_sendmsg+0x28d/0x3c0 net/socket.c:2595 __sys_sendmsg net/socket.c:2624 [inline] __do_sys_sendmsg net/socket.c:2633 [inline] __se_sys_sendmsg net/socket.c:2631 [inline] __x64_sys_sendmsg+0x307/0x490 net/socket.c:2631 do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:50 [inline] do_syscall_64+0x41/0xc0 arch/x86/entry/common.c:80 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd TIPC bearer-related names including link names must be null-terminated strings. If a link name which is not null-terminated is passed through netlink, strstr() and similar functions can cause buffer overrun. This causes the above issue. This patch changes the nla_policy for bearer-related names from NLA_STRING to NLA_NUL_STRING. This resolves the issue by ensuring that only null-terminated strings are accepted as bearer-related names. syzbot reported similar uninit-value issue related to bearer names [2]. The root cause of this issue is that a non-null-terminated bearer name was passed. This patch also resolved this issue.

Additional Information

External References

Content from www.cve.org is not included.https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-52845

Content from nvd.nist.gov is not included.https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-52845

Content from lore.kernel.org is not included.https://lore.kernel.org/linux-cve-announce/2024052112-CVE-2023-52845-0245@gregkh/T

Affected Packages and Issued Red Hat Security Errata

Products / Services Components State Errata
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 kernel Not affected
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 kernel Not affected
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 kernel-rt Not affected
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 kernel Fixed RHSA-2024:5101
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 kernel-rt Fixed RHSA-2024:5102
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 kernel Fix deferred
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 kernel-rt Fix deferred
Unless explicitly stated as not affected, all previous versions of packages in any minor update stream of a product listed here should be assumed vulnerable, although may not have been subject to full analysis.

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 Authorities (CNA) source for its products and services (see Red Hat classifications ).

CVSS v3 Score Breakdown Red Hat NVD
CVSS v3 Base Score 4.4 5.5
Attack Vector Local Local
Attack Complexity Low Low
Privileges Required High 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:H/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.
  • "Affected" means that our Analysis Team has determined that this product is affected by this vulnerability and might release a fix to address this in the near future.

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 This content is not included.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 This content is not included.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 This content is not included.Red Hat Vulnerability Scanner Certification program.