Information Exposure Affecting kernel-modules-internal package, versions *
Threat Intelligence
Do your applications use this vulnerable package?
In a few clicks we can analyze your entire application and see what components are vulnerable in your application, and suggest you quick fixes.
Test your applications- Snyk ID SNYK-CENTOS8-KERNELMODULESINTERNAL-7290884
- published 20 Jun 2024
- disclosed 19 Jun 2024
Introduced: 19 Jun 2024
CVE-2021-47608 Open this link in a new tabHow to fix?
There is no fixed version for Centos:8 kernel-modules-internal.
NVD Description
Note: Versions mentioned in the description apply only to the upstream kernel-modules-internal package and not the kernel-modules-internal package as distributed by Centos.
See How to fix? for Centos:8 relevant fixed versions and status.
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
bpf: Fix kernel address leakage in atomic fetch
The change in commit 37086bfdc737 ("bpf: Propagate stack bounds to registers in atomics w/ BPF_FETCH") around check_mem_access() handling is buggy since this would allow for unprivileged users to leak kernel pointers. For example, an atomic fetch/and with -1 on a stack destination which holds a spilled pointer will migrate the spilled register type into a scalar, which can then be exported out of the program (since scalar != pointer) by dumping it into a map value.
The original implementation of XADD was preventing this situation by using a double call to check_mem_access() one with BPF_READ and a subsequent one with BPF_WRITE, in both cases passing -1 as a placeholder value instead of register as per XADD semantics since it didn't contain a value fetch. The BPF_READ also included a check in check_stack_read_fixed_off() which rejects the program if the stack slot is of __is_pointer_value() if dst_regno < 0. The latter is to distinguish whether we're dealing with a regular stack spill/ fill or some arithmetical operation which is disallowed on non-scalars, see also 6e7e63cbb023 ("bpf: Forbid XADD on spilled pointers for unprivileged users") for more context on check_mem_access() and its handling of placeholder value -1.
One minimally intrusive option to fix the leak is for the BPF_FETCH case to initially check the BPF_READ case via check_mem_access() with -1 as register, followed by the actual load case with non-negative load_reg to propagate stack bounds to registers.