CVE-2024-27429: netrom: Fix a data-race around sysctl_netrom_obsolescence_count_initialiser

CVE-2024-27429: netrom: Fix a data-race around sysctl_netrom_obsolescence_count_initialiser

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

Description
===========

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

netrom: Fix a data-race around sysctl_netrom_obsolescence_count_initialiser

We need to protect the reader reading the sysctl value
because the value can be changed concurrently.

The Linux kernel CVE team has assigned CVE-2024-27429 to this issue.


Affected and fixed versions
===========================

	Issue introduced in 2.6.12 with commit 1da177e4c3f4 and fixed in 4.19.310 with commit e3a3718b1723
	Issue introduced in 2.6.12 with commit 1da177e4c3f4 and fixed in 5.4.272 with commit 1e84b108f2a7
	Issue introduced in 2.6.12 with commit 1da177e4c3f4 and fixed in 5.10.213 with commit 18c95d11c347
	Issue introduced in 2.6.12 with commit 1da177e4c3f4 and fixed in 5.15.152 with commit b3f0bc3a315c
	Issue introduced in 2.6.12 with commit 1da177e4c3f4 and fixed in 6.1.82 with commit e439607291c0
	Issue introduced in 2.6.12 with commit 1da177e4c3f4 and fixed in 6.6.22 with commit 7e1e25891f09
	Issue introduced in 2.6.12 with commit 1da177e4c3f4 and fixed in 6.7.10 with commit 591192c3a9fc
	Issue introduced in 2.6.12 with commit 1da177e4c3f4 and fixed in 6.8 with commit cfd9f4a740f7

Please see https://www.kernel.org for a full list of currently supported
kernel versions by the kernel community.

Unaffected versions might change over time as fixes are backported to
older supported kernel versions.  The official CVE entry at
	https://cve.org/CVERecord/?id=CVE-2024-27429
will be updated if fixes are backported, please check that for the most
up to date information about this issue.


Affected files
==============

The file(s) affected by this issue are:
	net/netrom/nr_route.c


Mitigation
==========

The Linux kernel CVE team recommends that you update to the latest
stable kernel version for this, and many other bugfixes.  Individual
changes are never tested alone, but rather are part of a larger kernel
release.  Cherry-picking individual commits is not recommended or
supported by the Linux kernel community at all.  If however, updating to
the latest release is impossible, the individual changes to resolve this
issue can be found at these commits:
	https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/e3a3718b1723253d4f068e88e81d880d71f1a1e9
	https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/1e84b108f2a71daa8d04032e4d2096522376debb
	https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/18c95d11c347a12e5c31df1325cef6b995d14ecf
	https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/b3f0bc3a315cf1af03673a0163c08fe037587acd
	https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/e439607291c082332e1e35baf8faf8552e6bcb4a
	https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/7e1e25891f090e24a871451c9403abac63cb45dd
	https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/591192c3a9fc728a0af7b9dd50bf121220062293
	https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/cfd9f4a740f772298308b2e6070d2c744fb5cf79

Re: CVE-2024-27429: netrom: Fix a data-race around sysctl_netrom_obsolescence_count_initialiser

[Michal Hocko]

This and couple of others are all having the same pattern. Adding
READ_ONCE for an integer value with a claim that this might race with
sysctl updates. While the claim about the race is correct I fail to see
how this could have any security consequences. Even if a partial write
was observed which sounds _more_ than theoretical these all are merely
timeouts and delays.

Is there anything I am missing?

On Fri 17-05-24 14:02:29, Greg KH wrote:
> Description
> ===========
> 
> In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
> 
> netrom: Fix a data-race around sysctl_netrom_obsolescence_count_initialiser
> 
> We need to protect the reader reading the sysctl value
> because the value can be changed concurrently.
> 
> The Linux kernel CVE team has assigned CVE-2024-27429 to this issue.
> 
> 
> Affected and fixed versions
> ===========================
> 
> 	Issue introduced in 2.6.12 with commit 1da177e4c3f4 and fixed in 4.19.310 with commit e3a3718b1723
> 	Issue introduced in 2.6.12 with commit 1da177e4c3f4 and fixed in 5.4.272 with commit 1e84b108f2a7
> 	Issue introduced in 2.6.12 with commit 1da177e4c3f4 and fixed in 5.10.213 with commit 18c95d11c347
> 	Issue introduced in 2.6.12 with commit 1da177e4c3f4 and fixed in 5.15.152 with commit b3f0bc3a315c
> 	Issue introduced in 2.6.12 with commit 1da177e4c3f4 and fixed in 6.1.82 with commit e439607291c0
> 	Issue introduced in 2.6.12 with commit 1da177e4c3f4 and fixed in 6.6.22 with commit 7e1e25891f09
> 	Issue introduced in 2.6.12 with commit 1da177e4c3f4 and fixed in 6.7.10 with commit 591192c3a9fc
> 	Issue introduced in 2.6.12 with commit 1da177e4c3f4 and fixed in 6.8 with commit cfd9f4a740f7
> 
> Please see https://www.kernel.org for a full list of currently supported
> kernel versions by the kernel community.
> 
> Unaffected versions might change over time as fixes are backported to
> older supported kernel versions.  The official CVE entry at
> 	https://cve.org/CVERecord/?id=CVE-2024-27429
> will be updated if fixes are backported, please check that for the most
> up to date information about this issue.
> 
> 
> Affected files
> ==============
> 
> The file(s) affected by this issue are:
> 	net/netrom/nr_route.c
> 
> 
> Mitigation
> ==========
> 
> The Linux kernel CVE team recommends that you update to the latest
> stable kernel version for this, and many other bugfixes.  Individual
> changes are never tested alone, but rather are part of a larger kernel
> release.  Cherry-picking individual commits is not recommended or
> supported by the Linux kernel community at all.  If however, updating to
> the latest release is impossible, the individual changes to resolve this
> issue can be found at these commits:
> 	https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/e3a3718b1723253d4f068e88e81d880d71f1a1e9
> 	https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/1e84b108f2a71daa8d04032e4d2096522376debb
> 	https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/18c95d11c347a12e5c31df1325cef6b995d14ecf
> 	https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/b3f0bc3a315cf1af03673a0163c08fe037587acd
> 	https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/e439607291c082332e1e35baf8faf8552e6bcb4a
> 	https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/7e1e25891f090e24a871451c9403abac63cb45dd
> 	https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/591192c3a9fc728a0af7b9dd50bf121220062293
> 	https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/cfd9f4a740f772298308b2e6070d2c744fb5cf79

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

Re: CVE-2024-27429: netrom: Fix a data-race around sysctl_netrom_obsolescence_count_initialiser

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 10:39:04AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> This and couple of others are all having the same pattern. Adding
> READ_ONCE for an integer value with a claim that this might race with
> sysctl updates. While the claim about the race is correct I fail to see
> how this could have any security consequences. Even if a partial write
> was observed which sounds _more_ than theoretical these all are merely
> timeouts and delays.
> 
> Is there anything I am missing?

Nope, you are right, our fault, I'll go revoke this now.

Thanks for the review, it's much appreciated!

greg k-h

Re: CVE-2024-27429: netrom: Fix a data-race around sysctl_netrom_obsolescence_count_initialiser

[Michal Hocko]

On Tue 21-05-24 16:40:24, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 10:39:04AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > This and couple of others are all having the same pattern. Adding
> > READ_ONCE for an integer value with a claim that this might race with
> > sysctl updates. While the claim about the race is correct I fail to see
> > how this could have any security consequences. Even if a partial write
> > was observed which sounds _more_ than theoretical these all are merely
> > timeouts and delays.
> > 
> > Is there anything I am missing?
> 
> Nope, you are right, our fault, I'll go revoke this now.

please also revoke all others touching the same function.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

Re: CVE-2024-27429: netrom: Fix a data-race around sysctl_netrom_obsolescence_count_initialiser

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 06:05:03PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 21-05-24 16:40:24, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 10:39:04AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > This and couple of others are all having the same pattern. Adding
> > > READ_ONCE for an integer value with a claim that this might race with
> > > sysctl updates. While the claim about the race is correct I fail to see
> > > how this could have any security consequences. Even if a partial write
> > > was observed which sounds _more_ than theoretical these all are merely
> > > timeouts and delays.
> > > 
> > > Is there anything I am missing?
> > 
> > Nope, you are right, our fault, I'll go revoke this now.
> 
> please also revoke all others touching the same function.

I don't see any other CVEs that reference that function, but I do see
some that reference the same type of issue in the same file:
	CVE-2024-27420
	CVE-2024-27421
	CVE-2024-27430
are those what you are referring to?  If not, which ones do you think
also should be revoked?

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: CVE-2024-27429: netrom: Fix a data-race around sysctl_netrom_obsolescence_count_initialiser

[Davide Benini]

On 22/05/24 07:11, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 06:05:03PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> On Tue 21-05-24 16:40:24, Greg KH wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 10:39:04AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>>> This and couple of others are all having the same pattern. Adding
>>>> READ_ONCE for an integer value with a claim that this might race with
>>>> sysctl updates. While the claim about the race is correct I fail to see
>>>> how this could have any security consequences. Even if a partial write
>>>> was observed which sounds _more_ than theoretical these all are merely
>>>> timeouts and delays.
>>>>
>>>> Is there anything I am missing?
>>>
>>> Nope, you are right, our fault, I'll go revoke this now.
>>
>> please also revoke all others touching the same function.
> 
> I don't see any other CVEs that reference that function, but I do see
> some that reference the same type of issue in the same file:
> 	CVE-2024-27420
> 	CVE-2024-27421
> 	CVE-2024-27430
> are those what you are referring to?  If not, which ones do you think
> also should be revoked?

It seems all the CVEs in the range [CVE-2024-27420, CVE-2024-27430] are of the same kind.
Shouldn't all be revoked?

Thanks
Davide Benini

Re: CVE-2024-27429: netrom: Fix a data-race around sysctl_netrom_obsolescence_count_initialiser

[Michal Hocko]

On Wed 22-05-24 12:21:54, Davide Benini wrote:
> On 22/05/24 07:11, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 06:05:03PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Tue 21-05-24 16:40:24, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 10:39:04AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > > This and couple of others are all having the same pattern. Adding
> > > > > READ_ONCE for an integer value with a claim that this might race with
> > > > > sysctl updates. While the claim about the race is correct I fail to see
> > > > > how this could have any security consequences. Even if a partial write
> > > > > was observed which sounds _more_ than theoretical these all are merely
> > > > > timeouts and delays.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Is there anything I am missing?
> > > > 
> > > > Nope, you are right, our fault, I'll go revoke this now.
> > > 
> > > please also revoke all others touching the same function.
> > 
> > I don't see any other CVEs that reference that function, but I do see
> > some that reference the same type of issue in the same file:
> > 	CVE-2024-27420
> > 	CVE-2024-27421
> > 	CVE-2024-27430
> > are those what you are referring to?  If not, which ones do you think
> > also should be revoked?
> 
> It seems all the CVEs in the range [CVE-2024-27420, CVE-2024-27430] are of the same kind.
> Shouldn't all be revoked?

Yes all these
bc76645ebdd0 ("netrom: Fix a data-race around sysctl_netrom_link_fails_count")
b5dffcb8f71b ("netrom: Fix a data-race around sysctl_netrom_routing_control")
f99b494b4043 ("netrom: Fix a data-race around sysctl_netrom_transport_no_activity_timeout")
a2e706841488 ("netrom: Fix a data-race around sysctl_netrom_transport_requested_window_size")
43547d869943 ("netrom: Fix a data-race around sysctl_netrom_transport_busy_delay")
806f462ba902 ("netrom: Fix a data-race around sysctl_netrom_transport_acknowledge_delay")
e799299aafed ("netrom: Fix a data-race around sysctl_netrom_transport_maximum_tries")
60a7a152abd4 ("netrom: Fix a data-race around sysctl_netrom_transport_timeout")
119cae5ea3f9 ("netrom: Fix data-races around sysctl_netrom_network_ttl_initialiser")
cfd9f4a740f7 ("netrom: Fix a data-race around sysctl_netrom_obsolescence_count_initialiser")
958d6145a6d9 ("netrom: Fix a data-race around sysctl_netrom_default_path_quality")

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

Re: CVE-2024-27429: netrom: Fix a data-race around sysctl_netrom_obsolescence_count_initialiser

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Fri, May 24, 2024 at 01:27:19PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 22-05-24 12:21:54, Davide Benini wrote:
> > On 22/05/24 07:11, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 06:05:03PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > On Tue 21-05-24 16:40:24, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 10:39:04AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > > > This and couple of others are all having the same pattern. Adding
> > > > > > READ_ONCE for an integer value with a claim that this might race with
> > > > > > sysctl updates. While the claim about the race is correct I fail to see
> > > > > > how this could have any security consequences. Even if a partial write
> > > > > > was observed which sounds _more_ than theoretical these all are merely
> > > > > > timeouts and delays.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Is there anything I am missing?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Nope, you are right, our fault, I'll go revoke this now.
> > > > 
> > > > please also revoke all others touching the same function.
> > > 
> > > I don't see any other CVEs that reference that function, but I do see
> > > some that reference the same type of issue in the same file:
> > > 	CVE-2024-27420
> > > 	CVE-2024-27421
> > > 	CVE-2024-27430
> > > are those what you are referring to?  If not, which ones do you think
> > > also should be revoked?
> > 
> > It seems all the CVEs in the range [CVE-2024-27420, CVE-2024-27430] are of the same kind.
> > Shouldn't all be revoked?
> 
> Yes all these
> bc76645ebdd0 ("netrom: Fix a data-race around sysctl_netrom_link_fails_count")
> b5dffcb8f71b ("netrom: Fix a data-race around sysctl_netrom_routing_control")
> f99b494b4043 ("netrom: Fix a data-race around sysctl_netrom_transport_no_activity_timeout")
> a2e706841488 ("netrom: Fix a data-race around sysctl_netrom_transport_requested_window_size")
> 43547d869943 ("netrom: Fix a data-race around sysctl_netrom_transport_busy_delay")
> 806f462ba902 ("netrom: Fix a data-race around sysctl_netrom_transport_acknowledge_delay")
> e799299aafed ("netrom: Fix a data-race around sysctl_netrom_transport_maximum_tries")
> 60a7a152abd4 ("netrom: Fix a data-race around sysctl_netrom_transport_timeout")
> 119cae5ea3f9 ("netrom: Fix data-races around sysctl_netrom_network_ttl_initialiser")
> cfd9f4a740f7 ("netrom: Fix a data-race around sysctl_netrom_obsolescence_count_initialiser")
> 958d6145a6d9 ("netrom: Fix a data-race around sysctl_netrom_default_path_quality")

All now revoked, thanks.

greg k-h