CyberSecBulletin
CVE-2024-26742NVD status: Analyzed

Linux: Out-of-bounds Write

Published Updated By the CyberSecBulletin desk

CVE-2024-26742 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 3c31b18a8dd8b7bf36af1cd723d455853b8f94fe, 4f5b15c15e6016efb3e14582d02cc4ddf57227df, b9433b25cb06c415c9cb24782599649a406c8d6d 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 0.24% chance of exploitation within 30 days, which is low compared with other CVEs.

Next patch cycle

High severity with no evidence of exploitation so far.

What to do

  1. Update Linux to 3c31b18a8dd8b7bf36af1cd723d455853b8f94fe or 4f5b15c15e6016efb3e14582d02cc4ddf57227df or b9433b25cb06c415c9cb24782599649a406c8d6d or 5761eb9761d2d5fe8248a9b719efc4d8baf1f24a, whichever matches your release line, or a later version.
  2. Update Linux Kernel to 6.1.80 or 6.6.19 or 6.7.7, whichever matches your release line, or a later version.

Affected products and versions

VendorProductAffected versionsFixed in
LinuxLinuxcf15c3e734e8d25de7b4d9170f5a69ace633a583 up to, but not including, 3c31b18a8dd8b7bf36af1cd723d455853b8f94fe; cf15c3e734e8d25de7b4d9170f5a69ace633a583 up to, but not including, 4f5b15c15e6016efb3e14582d02cc4ddf57227df; cf15c3e734e8d25de7b4d9170f5a69ace633a583 up to, but not including, b9433b25cb06c415c9cb24782599649a406c8d6d; cf15c3e734e8d25de7b4d9170f5a69ace633a583 up to, but not including, 5761eb9761d2d5fe8248a9b719efc4d8baf1f24a; 6.03c31b18a8dd8b7bf36af1cd723d455853b8f94fe, 4f5b15c15e6016efb3e14582d02cc4ddf57227df, b9433b25cb06c415c9cb24782599649a406c8d6d, 5761eb9761d2d5fe8248a9b719efc4d8baf1f24a
LinuxLinux Kernel6.0 up to, but not including, 6.1.80; 6.2 up to, but not including, 6.6.19; 6.7 up to, but not including, 6.7.7; 6.86.1.80, 6.6.19, 6.7.7

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.

Official description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: scsi: smartpqi: Fix disable_managed_interrupts Correct blk-mq registration issue with module parameter disable_managed_interrupts enabled. When we turn off the default PCI_IRQ_AFFINITY flag, the driver needs to register with blk-mq using blk_mq_map_queues(). The driver is currently calling blk_mq_pci_map_queues() which results in a stack trace and possibly undefined behavior. Stack Trace: [ 7.860089] scsi host2: smartpqi [ 7.871934] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 238 at block/blk-mq-pci.c:52 blk_mq_pci_map_queues+0xca/0xd0 [ 7.889231] Modules linked in: sd_mod t10_pi sg uas smartpqi(+) crc32c_intel scsi_transport_sas usb_storage dm_mirror dm_region_hash dm_log dm_mod ipmi_devintf ipmi_msghandler fuse [ 7.924755] CPU: 0 PID: 238 Comm: kworker/0:3 Not tainted 4.18.0-372.88.1.el8_6_smartpqi_test.x86_64 #1 [ 7.944336] Hardware name: HPE ProLiant DL380 Gen10/ProLiant DL380 Gen10, BIOS U30 03/08/2022 [ 7.963026] Workqueue: events work_for_cpu_fn [ 7.978275] RIP: 0010:blk_mq_pci_map_queues+0xca/0xd0 [ 7.978278] Code: 48 89 de 89 c7 e8 f6 0f 4f 00 3b 05 c4 b7 8e 01 72 e1 5b 31 c0 5d 41 5c 41 5d 41 5e 41 5f e9 7d df 73 00 31 c0 e9 76 df 73 00 <0f> 0b eb bc 90 90 0f 1f 44 00 00 41 57 49 89 ff 41 56 41 55 41 54 [ 7.978280] RSP: 0018:ffffa95fc3707d50 EFLAGS: 00010216 [ 7.978283] RAX: 00000000ffffffff RBX: 0000000000000000 RCX: 0000000000000010 [ 7.978284] RDX: 0000000000000004 RSI: 0000000000000000 RDI: ffff9190c32d4310 [ 7.978286] RBP: 0000000000000000 R08: ffffa95fc3707d38 R09: ffff91929b81ac00 [ 7.978287] R10: 0000000000000001 R11: ffffa95fc3707ac0 R12: 0000000000000000 [ 7.978288] R13: ffff9190c32d4000 R14: 00000000ffffffff R15: ffff9190c4c950a8 [ 7.978290] FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff9193efc00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 [ 7.978292] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 [ 8.172814] CR2: 000055d11166c000 CR3: 00000002dae10002 CR4: 00000000007706f0 [ 8.172816] DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000 [ 8.172817] DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400 [ 8.172818] PKRU: 55555554 [ 8.172819] Call Trace: [ 8.172823] blk_mq_alloc_tag_set+0x12e/0x310 [ 8.264339] scsi_add_host_with_dma.cold.9+0x30/0x245 [ 8.279302] pqi_ctrl_init+0xacf/0xc8e [smartpqi] [ 8.294085] ? pqi_pci_probe+0x480/0x4c8 [smartpqi] [ 8.309015] pqi_pci_probe+0x480/0x4c8 [smartpqi] [ 8.323286] local_pci_probe+0x42/0x80 [ 8.337855] work_for_cpu_fn+0x16/0x20 [ 8.351193] process_one_work+0x1a7/0x360 [ 8.364462] ? create_worker+0x1a0/0x1a0 [ 8.379252] worker_thread+0x1ce/0x390 [ 8.392623] ? create_worker+0x1a0/0x1a0 [ 8.406295] kthread+0x10a/0x120 [ 8.418428] ? set_kthread_struct+0x50/0x50 [ 8.431532] ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x40 [ 8.444137] ---[ end trace 1bf0173d39354506 ]---

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.

More Out-of-bounds Write vulnerabilities (CWE-787)

Timeline

  1. CVE record published.
  2. CISA published its SSVC assessment (exploitation: none, automatable: no, technical impact: partial).
  3. Record last changed materially (score, affected products, status or references).

References

Recent Out-of-bounds Write vulnerabilities

Spotted an error? Tell us.