You are viewing this page in an unauthorized frame window.
This is a potential security issue, you are being redirected to
https://nvd.nist.gov
An official website of the United States government
Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock () or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
s390/bpf: Fix bpf_plt pointer arithmetic
Kui-Feng Lee reported a crash on s390x triggered by the
dummy_st_ops/dummy_init_ptr_arg test [1]:
[<0000000000000002>] 0x2
[<00000000009d5cde>] bpf_struct_ops_test_run+0x156/0x250
[<000000000033145a>] __sys_bpf+0xa1a/0xd00
[<00000000003319dc>] __s390x_sys_bpf+0x44/0x50
[<0000000000c4382c>] __do_syscall+0x244/0x300
[<0000000000c59a40>] system_call+0x70/0x98
This is caused by GCC moving memcpy() after assignments in
bpf_jit_plt(), resulting in NULL pointers being written instead of
the return and the target addresses.
Looking at the GCC internals, the reordering is allowed because the
alias analysis thinks that the memcpy() destination and the assignments'
left-hand-sides are based on different objects: new_plt and
bpf_plt_ret/bpf_plt_target respectively, and therefore they cannot
alias.
This is in turn due to a violation of the C standard:
When two pointers are subtracted, both shall point to elements of the
same array object, or one past the last element of the array object
...
From the C's perspective, bpf_plt_ret and bpf_plt are distinct objects
and cannot be subtracted. In the practical terms, doing so confuses the
GCC's alias analysis.
The code was written this way in order to let the C side know a few
offsets defined in the assembly. While nice, this is by no means
necessary. Fix the noncompliance by hardcoding these offsets.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected]/
Metrics
NVD enrichment efforts reference publicly available information to associate
vector strings. CVSS information contributed by other sources is also
displayed.
By selecting these links, you will be leaving NIST webspace.
We have provided these links to other web sites because they
may have information that would be of interest to you. No
inferences should be drawn on account of other sites being
referenced, or not, from this page. There may be other web
sites that are more appropriate for your purpose. NIST does
not necessarily endorse the views expressed, or concur with
the facts presented on these sites. Further, NIST does not
endorse any commercial products that may be mentioned on
these sites. Please address comments about this page to [email protected].
OR
*cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:6.9:rc1:*:*:*:*:*:*
*cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:* versions from (including) 6.7 up to (excluding) 6.8.5
*cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:* versions from (including) 6.3 up to (excluding) 6.6.26
New CVE Received from kernel.org5/19/2024 5:15:12 AM
Action
Type
Old Value
New Value
Added
Description
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
s390/bpf: Fix bpf_plt pointer arithmetic
Kui-Feng Lee reported a crash on s390x triggered by the
dummy_st_ops/dummy_init_ptr_arg test [1]:
[<0000000000000002>] 0x2
[<00000000009d5cde>] bpf_struct_ops_test_run+0x156/0x250
[<000000000033145a>] __sys_bpf+0xa1a/0xd00
[<00000000003319dc>] __s390x_sys_bpf+0x44/0x50
[<0000000000c4382c>] __do_syscall+0x244/0x300
[<0000000000c59a40>] system_call+0x70/0x98
This is caused by GCC moving memcpy() after assignments in
bpf_jit_plt(), resulting in NULL pointers being written instead of
the return and the target addresses.
Looking at the GCC internals, the reordering is allowed because the
alias analysis thinks that the memcpy() destination and the assignments'
left-hand-sides are based on different objects: new_plt and
bpf_plt_ret/bpf_plt_target respectively, and therefore they cannot
alias.
This is in turn due to a violation of the C standard:
When two pointers are subtracted, both shall point to elements of the
same array object, or one past the last element of the array object
...
From the C's perspective, bpf_plt_ret and bpf_plt are distinct objects
and cannot be subtracted. In the practical terms, doing so confuses the
GCC's alias analysis.
The code was written this way in order to let the C side know a few
offsets defined in the assembly. While nice, this is by no means
necessary. Fix the noncompliance by hardcoding these offsets.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected]/