CVE-2024-50200

Public on

Last Modified: UTC

Description

The MITRE CVE dictionary describes this issue as

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: maple_tree: correct tree corruption on spanning store Patch series "maple_tree: correct tree corruption on spanning store", v3. There has been a nasty yet subtle maple tree corruption bug that appears to have been in existence since the inception of the algorithm. This bug seems far more likely to happen since commit f8d112a4e657 ("mm/mmap: avoid zeroing vma tree in mmap_region()"), which is the point at which reports started to be submitted concerning this bug. We were made definitely aware of the bug thanks to the kind efforts of Bert Karwatzki who helped enormously in my being able to track this down and identify the cause of it. The bug arises when an attempt is made to perform a spanning store across two leaf nodes, where the right leaf node is the rightmost child of the shared parent, AND the store completely consumes the right-mode node. This results in mas_wr_spanning_store() mitakenly duplicating the new and existing entries at the maximum pivot within the range, and thus maple tree corruption. The fix patch corrects this by detecting this scenario and disallowing the mistaken duplicate copy. The fix patch commit message goes into great detail as to how this occurs. This series also includes a test which reliably reproduces the issue, and asserts that the fix works correctly. Bert has kindly tested the fix and confirmed it resolved his issues. Also Mikhail Gavrilov kindly reported what appears to be precisely the same bug, which this fix should also resolve. This patch (of 2): There has been a subtle bug present in the maple tree implementation from its inception. This arises from how stores are performed - when a store occurs, it will overwrite overlapping ranges and adjust the tree as necessary to accommodate this. A range may always ultimately span two leaf nodes. In this instance we walk the two leaf nodes, determine which elements are not overwritten to the left and to the right of the start and end of the ranges respectively and then rebalance the tree to contain these entries and the newly inserted one. This kind of store is dubbed a 'spanning store' and is implemented by mas_wr_spanning_store(). In order to reach this stage, mas_store_gfp() invokes mas_wr_preallocate(), mas_wr_store_type() and mas_wr_walk() in turn to walk the tree and update the object (mas) to traverse to the location where the write should be performed, determining its store type. When a spanning store is required, this function returns false stopping at the parent node which contains the target range, and mas_wr_store_type() marks the mas->store_type as wr_spanning_store to denote this fact. When we go to perform the store in mas_wr_spanning_store(), we first determine the elements AFTER the END of the range we wish to store (that is, to the right of the entry to be inserted) - we do this by walking to the NEXT pivot in the tree (i.e. r_mas.last + 1), starting at the node we have just determined contains the range over which we intend to write. We then turn our attention to the entries to the left of the entry we are inserting, whose state is represented by l_mas, and copy these into a 'big node', which is a special node which contains enough slots to contain two leaf node's worth of data. We then copy the entry we wish to store immediately after this - the copy and the insertion of the new entry is performed by mas_store_b_node(). After this we copy the elements to the right of the end of the range which we are inserting, if we have not exceeded the length of the node (i.e. r_mas.offset <= r_mas.end). Herein lies the bug - under very specific circumstances, this logic can break and corrupt the maple tree. Consider the following tree: Height 0 Root Node / \ pivot = 0xffff / \ pivot = ULONG_MAX / ---truncated---

Additional Information

External References

Content from www.cve.org is not included.https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2024-50200

Content from nvd.nist.gov is not included.https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-50200

Content from git.kernel.org is not included.https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/security/vulns.git/tree/cve/published/2024/CVE-2024-50200.mbox

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 Not affected
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 kernel-rt Not affected
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 kernel Fixed RHSA-2025:6966
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 kernel-rt Will not fix
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 7.1 5.5
Attack Vector Local Local
Attack Complexity Low Low
Privileges Required Low Low
User Interaction None None
Scope Unchanged Unchanged
Confidentiality Impact High None
Integrity Impact None None
Availability Impact High High

CVSS v3 Vector

Red Hat CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/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.

My product is listed as "Out of Support Scope". What does this mean?

When a product is listed as "Out of Support Scope", it means a vulnerability with the impact level assigned to this CVE is no longer covered by its current support lifecycle phase. The product has been identified to contain the impacted component, but analysis to determine whether it is affected or not by this vulnerability was not performed. The product should be assumed to be affected. Customers are advised to apply any mitigation options documented on this page, consider removing or disabling the impacted component, or upgrade to a supported version of the product that has an update available.