Linux: Out-of-bounds Write
CVE-2022-48744 is a high-severity out-of-bounds write vulnerability in Linux, with a CVSS 3.1 base score of 7.8 out of 10. It can be exploited with local access to the system by an attacker with a low-privileged account, without any action from a user. The record lists versions 49bcbe531f79fc35bb10020f7695f9f01e4f0ca8, 8fbdf8c8b8ab82beab882175157650452c46493e, ad5185735f7dab342fdd0dd41044da4c9ccfef67 as the first without the flaw, so updating Linux to one of those releases or later removes the exposure. There is no confirmed exploitation so far. EPSS estimates a 0.6% chance of exploitation within 30 days, which is low compared with other CVEs.
High severity with no evidence of exploitation so far.
What to do
- Update Linux to 49bcbe531f79fc35bb10020f7695f9f01e4f0ca8 or 8fbdf8c8b8ab82beab882175157650452c46493e or ad5185735f7dab342fdd0dd41044da4c9ccfef67, whichever matches your release line, or a later version.
- Update Linux Kernel to 5.10.248 or 5.16.6, whichever matches your release line, or a later version.
Affected products and versions
| Vendor | Product | Affected versions | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|---|
| Linux | Linux | b5503b994ed5ed8dbfe821317e7b5b38acb065c5 up to, but not including, 49bcbe531f79fc35bb10020f7695f9f01e4f0ca8; b5503b994ed5ed8dbfe821317e7b5b38acb065c5 up to, but not including, 8fbdf8c8b8ab82beab882175157650452c46493e; b5503b994ed5ed8dbfe821317e7b5b38acb065c5 up to, but not including, ad5185735f7dab342fdd0dd41044da4c9ccfef67; 4.9 | 49bcbe531f79fc35bb10020f7695f9f01e4f0ca8, 8fbdf8c8b8ab82beab882175157650452c46493e, ad5185735f7dab342fdd0dd41044da4c9ccfef67 |
| Linux | Linux Kernel | 4.9 up to, but not including, 5.10.248; 5.11 up to, but not including, 5.16.6; 5.17 | 5.10.248, 5.16.6 |
Version data comes from the organisation that assigned the CVE. Confirm against the vendor advisory before deciding you are unaffected.
How the severity score breaks down
- Attack vector
- LocalThe attacker needs local access or must trick a user into running something.
- Attack complexity
- LowNo special conditions are needed; the attack works reliably.
- Privileges required
- LowA basic user account is enough.
- User interaction
- NoneNo action by a victim is required.
- Scope
- UnchangedImpact stays within the vulnerable component.
- Confidentiality
- HighAll data handled by the component can be read.
- Integrity
- HighData or code can be modified at will.
- Availability
- HighThe component can be taken down completely.
Vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H. Scored by NVD.
| Scoring system | Score | Severity | Scored by |
|---|---|---|---|
| CVSS 3.1 | 7.5 | High | CNA |
| CVSS 3.1 | 7.8 | High | NVD |
Official description
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net/mlx5e: Avoid field-overflowing memcpy() In preparation for FORTIFY_SOURCE performing compile-time and run-time field bounds checking for memcpy(), memmove(), and memset(), avoid intentionally writing across neighboring fields. Use flexible arrays instead of zero-element arrays (which look like they are always overflowing) and split the cross-field memcpy() into two halves that can be appropriately bounds-checked by the compiler. We were doing: #define ETH_HLEN 14 #define VLAN_HLEN 4 ... #define MLX5E_XDP_MIN_INLINE (ETH_HLEN + VLAN_HLEN) ... struct mlx5e_tx_wqe *wqe = mlx5_wq_cyc_get_wqe(wq, pi); ... struct mlx5_wqe_eth_seg *eseg = &wqe->eth; struct mlx5_wqe_data_seg *dseg = wqe->data; ... memcpy(eseg->inline_hdr.start, xdptxd->data, MLX5E_XDP_MIN_INLINE); target is wqe->eth.inline_hdr.start (which the compiler sees as being 2 bytes in size), but copying 18, intending to write across start (really vlan_tci, 2 bytes). The remaining 16 bytes get written into wqe->data[0], covering byte_count (4 bytes), lkey (4 bytes), and addr (8 bytes). struct mlx5e_tx_wqe { struct mlx5_wqe_ctrl_seg ctrl; /* 0 16 */ struct mlx5_wqe_eth_seg eth; /* 16 16 */ struct mlx5_wqe_data_seg data[]; /* 32 0 */ /* size: 32, cachelines: 1, members: 3 */ /* last cacheline: 32 bytes */ }; struct mlx5_wqe_eth_seg { u8 swp_outer_l4_offset; /* 0 1 */ u8 swp_outer_l3_offset; /* 1 1 */ u8 swp_inner_l4_offset; /* 2 1 */ u8 swp_inner_l3_offset; /* 3 1 */ u8 cs_flags; /* 4 1 */ u8 swp_flags; /* 5 1 */ __be16 mss; /* 6 2 */ __be32 flow_table_metadata; /* 8 4 */ union { struct { __be16 sz; /* 12 2 */ u8 start[2]; /* 14 2 */ } inline_hdr; /* 12 4 */ struct { __be16 type; /* 12 2 */ __be16 vlan_tci; /* 14 2 */ } insert; /* 12 4 */ __be32 trailer; /* 12 4 */ }; /* 12 4 */ /* size: 16, cachelines: 1, members: 9 */ /* last cacheline: 16 bytes */ }; struct mlx5_wqe_data_seg { __be32 byte_count; /* 0 4 */ __be32 lkey; /* 4 4 */ __be64 addr; /* 8 8 */ /* size: 16, cachelines: 1, members: 3 */ /* last cacheline: 16 bytes */ }; So, split the memcpy() so the compiler can reason about the buffer sizes. "pahole" shows no size nor member offset changes to struct mlx5e_tx_wqe nor struct mlx5e_umr_wqe. "objdump -d" shows no meaningful object code changes (i.e. only source line number induced differences and optimizations).
Source: the CVE record as published by its numbering authority, via NVD and CVE.org.
The underlying weakness: Out-of-bounds Write
The product writes data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.
How developers prevent this class of flaw
- Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, many languages that perform their own memory management, such as Java and Perl, are not subject to buffer overflows. Other languages, such as Ada and C#, typically provide overflow protection, but the protection can be disabled by the programmer. Be wary that a language's interface to native code may still be subject to overflows, even if the language itself is theoretically safe.
- Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. Examples include the Safe C String Library (SafeStr) by Messier and Viega, and the Strsafe.h library from Microsoft. These libraries provide safer versions of overflow-prone string-handling functions.
- Use automatic buffer overflow detection mechanisms that are offered by certain compilers or compiler extensions. Examples include: the Microsoft Visual Studio /GS flag, Fedora/Red Hat FORTIFY_SOURCE GCC flag, StackGuard, and ProPolice, which provide various mechanisms including canary-based detection and range/index checking. D3-SFCV (Stack Frame Canary Validation) from D3FEND discusses canary-based detection in detail.
Timeline
- CVE record published.
- CISA published its SSVC assessment (exploitation: none, automatable: no, technical impact: partial).
- Record last changed materially (score, affected products, status or references).
References
Patches and release notes
Recent Out-of-bounds Write vulnerabilities
- 8.8 High severity
- 7.8 High severity
- 7.8 High severity
- 7.5 High severity
- 8.8 High severity
- 7.8 High severity
Spotted an error? Tell us.