CVE-2024-50063
HIGHDescription
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: bpf: Prevent tail call between progs attached to different hooks bpf progs can be attached to kernel functions, and the attached functions can take different parameters or return different return values. If prog attached to one kernel function tail calls prog attached to another kernel function, the ctx access or return value verification could be bypassed. For example, if prog1 is attached to func1 which takes only 1 parameter and prog2 is attached to func2 which takes two parameters. Since verifier assumes the bpf ctx passed to prog2 is constructed based on func2's prototype, verifier allows prog2 to access the second parameter from the bpf ctx passed to it. The problem is that verifier does not prevent prog1 from passing its bpf ctx to prog2 via tail call. In this case, the bpf ctx passed to prog2 is constructed from func1 instead of func2, that is, the assumption for ctx access verification is bypassed. Another example, if BPF LSM prog1 is attached to hook file_alloc_security, and BPF LSM prog2 is attached to hook bpf_lsm_audit_rule_known. Verifier knows the return value rules for these two hooks, e.g. it is legal for bpf_lsm_audit_rule_known to return positive number 1, and it is illegal for file_alloc_security to return positive number. So verifier allows prog2 to return positive number 1, but does not allow prog1 to return positive number. The problem is that verifier does not prevent prog1 from calling prog2 via tail call. In this case, prog2's return value 1 will be used as the return value for prog1's hook file_alloc_security. That is, the return value rule is bypassed. This patch adds restriction for tail call to prevent such bypasses.
Is your site exposed to CVE-2024-50063?
Run a free security scan — no signup, results in seconds.
CVSS v3.1 Score
Affected Products
| Vendor | Product |
|---|---|
| linux | linux_kernel |
| linux | linux_kernel |
References
Advisories & Patches
Frequently Asked Questions
What is CVE-2024-50063? +
How severe is CVE-2024-50063? +
What products are affected by CVE-2024-50063? +
How do I check if I'm vulnerable to CVE-2024-50063? +
Related Vulnerabilities
Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection') vulnerability in Iron Mountain Archiving Services Inc. …
A SQL Injection vulnerability exists in Esri ArcGIS Server versions 11.3, 11.4 and 11.5 on Windows, Linux and Kubernetes. This …
Adobe Campaign Classic (ACC) versions 7.4.3 build 9396 and earlier are affected by an Incorrect Authorization vulnerability that could result …
Use after free in Browser in Google Chrome prior to 150.0.7871.47 allowed a remote attacker who had compromised the renderer …
Adobe Campaign Classic (ACC) versions 7.4.3 build 9394 and earlier are affected by an Incorrect Authorization vulnerability that could result …
The Commvault Command Center Innovation Release allows an unauthenticated actor to upload ZIP files that represent install packages that, when …