CVE-2024-50099
Public on
Last Modified:
Impact
What does this mean?
Description
The MITRE CVE dictionary describes this issue as
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
arm64: probes: Remove broken LDR (literal) uprobe support
The simulate_ldr_literal() and simulate_ldrsw_literal() functions are
unsafe to use for uprobes. Both functions were originally written for
use with kprobes, and access memory with plain C accesses. When uprobes
was added, these were reused unmodified even though they cannot safely
access user memory.
There are three key problems:
1) The plain C accesses do not have corresponding extable entries, and
thus if they encounter a fault the kernel will treat these as
unintentional accesses to user memory, resulting in a BUG() which
will kill the kernel thread, and likely lead to further issues (e.g.
lockup or panic()).
2) The plain C accesses are subject to HW PAN and SW PAN, and so when
either is in use, any attempt to simulate an access to user memory
will fault. Thus neither simulate_ldr_literal() nor
simulate_ldrsw_literal() can do anything useful when simulating a
user instruction on any system with HW PAN or SW PAN.
3) The plain C accesses are privileged, as they run in kernel context,
and in practice can access a small range of kernel virtual addresses.
The instructions they simulate have a range of +/-1MiB, and since the
simulated instructions must itself be a user instructions in the
TTBR0 address range, these can address the final 1MiB of the TTBR1
acddress range by wrapping downwards from an address in the first
1MiB of the TTBR0 address range.
In contemporary kernels the last 8MiB of TTBR1 address range is
reserved, and accesses to this will always fault, meaning this is no
worse than (1).
Historically, it was theoretically possible for the linear map or
vmemmap to spill into the final 8MiB of the TTBR1 address range, but
in practice this is extremely unlikely to occur as this would
require either:
* Having enough physical memory to fill the entire linear map all the
way to the final 1MiB of the TTBR1 address range.
* Getting unlucky with KASLR randomization of the linear map such
that the populated region happens to overlap with the last 1MiB of
the TTBR address range.
... and in either case if we were to spill into the final page there
would be larger problems as the final page would alias with error
pointers.
Practically speaking, (1) and (2) are the big issues. Given there have
been no reports of problems since the broken code was introduced, it
appears that no-one is relying on probing these instructions with
uprobes.
Avoid these issues by not allowing uprobes on LDR (literal) and LDRSW
(literal), limiting the use of simulate_ldr_literal() and
simulate_ldrsw_literal() to kprobes. Attempts to place uprobes on LDR
(literal) and LDRSW (literal) will be rejected as
arm_probe_decode_insn() will return INSN_REJECTED. In future we can
consider introducing working uprobes support for these instructions, but
this will require more significant work.
Statement
This CVE has been marked as Rejected by the assigning CNA.
Additional Information
- This content is not included.Bugzilla 2323904: kernel: arm64: probes: Remove broken LDR (literal) uprobe support
- FAQ: Frequently asked questions about CVE-2024-50099
- Offline Security Data data is available for integration with other systems. See Offline Security Data API to get started.
External References
Content from www.cve.org is not included.https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2024-50099
Content from nvd.nist.gov is not included.https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-50099
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-2024:10943 |
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 | kernel-rt | Fixed | RHSA-2024:10944 |
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 | kernel-rt | Affected | |
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 | kernel | Fixed | RHSA-2024:11486 |
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9.4 Extended Update Support | kernel | Fixed | RHSA-2025:2270 |
Frequently Asked Questions
Why is Red Hat's CVSS v3 score or Impact different from other vendors?
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"?
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"?
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?
I have a Red Hat product but it is not in the above list, is it affected?
Why is my security scanner reporting my product as vulnerable to this vulnerability even though my product version is fixed or not affected?
Not sure what something means? Check out our Security Glossary.