Out-of-bounds Write Affecting kernel-syms-coco package, versions <6.4.0-15061.6.coco15sp6.1


Severity

Recommended
0.0
medium
0
10

Based on SUSE Linux Enterprise Server security rating.

Threat Intelligence

EPSS
0.04% (6th percentile)

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-SLES156-KERNELSYMSCOCO-8170366
  • published9 Oct 2024
  • disclosed8 Oct 2024

Introduced: 8 Oct 2024

CVE-2024-45022  (opens in a new tab)
CWE-787  (opens in a new tab)

How to fix?

Upgrade SLES:15.6 kernel-syms-coco to version 6.4.0-15061.6.coco15sp6.1 or higher.

NVD Description

Note: Versions mentioned in the description apply only to the upstream kernel-syms-coco package and not the kernel-syms-coco package as distributed by SLES. See How to fix? for SLES:15.6 relevant fixed versions and status.

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

mm/vmalloc: fix page mapping if vm_area_alloc_pages() with high order fallback to order 0

The __vmap_pages_range_noflush() assumes its argument pages** contains pages with the same page shift. However, since commit e9c3cda4d86e ("mm, vmalloc: fix high order __GFP_NOFAIL allocations"), if gfp_flags includes __GFP_NOFAIL with high order in vm_area_alloc_pages() and page allocation failed for high order, the pages** may contain two different page shifts (high order and order-0). This could lead __vmap_pages_range_noflush() to perform incorrect mappings, potentially resulting in memory corruption.

Users might encounter this as follows (vmap_allow_huge = true, 2M is for PMD_SIZE):

kvmalloc(2M, __GFP_NOFAIL|GFP_X) __vmalloc_node_range_noprof(vm_flags=VM_ALLOW_HUGE_VMAP) vm_area_alloc_pages(order=9) ---> order-9 allocation failed and fallback to order-0 vmap_pages_range() vmap_pages_range_noflush() __vmap_pages_range_noflush(page_shift = 21) ----> wrong mapping happens

We can remove the fallback code because if a high-order allocation fails, __vmalloc_node_range_noprof() will retry with order-0. Therefore, it is unnecessary to fallback to order-0 here. Therefore, fix this by removing the fallback code.

CVSS Scores

version 3.1