CVE-2024-50099

Public on

Last Modified: UTC

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

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

Content from lore.kernel.org is not included.https://lore.kernel.org/linux-cve-announce/2024110526-CVE-2024-50099-1758@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-2024:10943
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
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.

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.