CVE-2024-56786 Affecting kernel-modules-extra package, versions *


Severity

Recommended
low

Based on Red Hat Enterprise Linux security rating.

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 IDSNYK-RHEL8-KERNELMODULESEXTRA-8613821
  • published10 Jan 2025
  • disclosed8 Jan 2025

Introduced: 8 Jan 2025

NewCVE-2024-56786  (opens in a new tab)

How to fix?

There is no fixed version for RHEL:8 kernel-modules-extra.

NVD Description

Note: Versions mentioned in the description apply only to the upstream kernel-modules-extra package and not the kernel-modules-extra package as distributed by RHEL. See How to fix? for RHEL:8 relevant fixed versions and status.

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

bpf: put bpf_link's program when link is safe to be deallocated

In general, BPF link's underlying BPF program should be considered to be reachable through attach hook -> link -> prog chain, and, pessimistically, we have to assume that as long as link's memory is not safe to free, attach hook's code might hold a pointer to BPF program and use it.

As such, it's not (generally) correct to put link's program early before waiting for RCU GPs to go through. More eager bpf_prog_put() that we currently do is mostly correct due to BPF program's release code doing similar RCU GP waiting, but as will be shown in the following patches, BPF program can be non-sleepable (and, thus, reliant on only "classic" RCU GP), while BPF link's attach hook can have sleepable semantics and needs to be protected by RCU Tasks Trace, and for such cases BPF link has to go through RCU Tasks Trace + "classic" RCU GPs before being deallocated. And so, if we put BPF program early, we might free BPF program before we free BPF link, leading to use-after-free situation.

So, this patch defers bpf_prog_put() until we are ready to perform bpf_link's deallocation. At worst, this delays BPF program freeing by one extra RCU GP, but that seems completely acceptable. Alternatively, we'd need more elaborate ways to determine BPF hook, BPF link, and BPF program lifetimes, and how they relate to each other, which seems like an unnecessary complication.

Note, for most BPF links we still will perform eager bpf_prog_put() and link dealloc, so for those BPF links there are no observable changes whatsoever. Only BPF links that use deferred dealloc might notice slightly delayed freeing of BPF programs.

Also, to reduce code and logic duplication, extract program put + link dealloc logic into bpf_link_dealloc() helper.

CVSS Scores

version 3.1