If left unpatched, CVE-2024-35970 could lead to major system disruptions or data loss.
Status: Awaiting Analysis
Last updated: 🕘 21 Nov 2024, 09:21 UTC
Originally published on: 🕙 20 May 2024, 10:15 UTC
Time between publication and last update: 184 days
CVSS Release: version 3
134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0
Secondary
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVE-2024-35970: In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: af_unix: Clear stale u->oob_skb. syzkaller started to report deadlock of unix_gc_lock after commit 4090fa373f0e ("af_unix: Replace garbage collection algorithm."), but it just uncovers the bug that has been there since commit 314001f0bf92 ("af_unix: Add OOB support"). The repro basically does the following. from socket import * from array import array c1, c2 = socketpair(AF_UNIX, SOCK_STREAM) c1.sendmsg([b'a'], [(SOL_SOCKET, SCM_RIGHTS, array("i", [c2.fileno()]))], MSG_OOB) c2.recv(1) # blocked as no normal data in recv queue c2.close() # done async and unblock recv() c1.close() # done async and trigger GC A socket sends its file descriptor to itself as OOB data and tries to receive normal data, but finally recv() fails due to async close(). The problem here is wrong handling of OOB skb in manage_oob(). When recvmsg() is called without MSG_OOB, manage_oob() is called to check if the peeked skb is OOB skb. In such a case, manage_oob() pops it out of the receive queue but does not clear unix_sock(sk)->oob_skb. This is wrong in terms of uAPI. Let's say we send "hello" with MSG_OOB, and "world" without MSG_OOB. The 'o' is handled as OOB data. When recv() is called twice without MSG_OOB, the OOB data should be lost. >>> from socket import * >>> c1, c2 = socketpair(AF_UNIX, SOCK_STREAM, 0) >>> c1.send(b'hello', MSG_OOB) # 'o' is OOB data 5 >>> c1.send(b'world') 5 >>> c2.recv(5) # OOB data is not received b'hell' >>> c2.recv(5) # OOB date is skipped b'world' >>> c2.recv(5, MSG_OOB) # This should return an error b'o' In the same situation, TCP actually returns -EINVAL for the last recv(). Also, if we do not clear unix_sk(sk)->oob_skb, unix_poll() always set EPOLLPRI even though the data has passed through by previous recv(). To avoid these issues, we must clear unix_sk(sk)->oob_skb when dequeuing it from recv queue. The reason why the old GC did not trigger the deadlock is because the old GC relied on the receive queue to detect the loop. When it is triggered, the socket with OOB data is marked as GC candidate because file refcount == inflight count (1). However, after traversing all inflight sockets, the socket still has a positive inflight count (1), thus the socket is excluded from candidates. Then, the old GC lose the chance to garbage-collect the socket. With the old GC, the repro continues to create true garbage that will never be freed nor detected by kmemleak as it's linked to the global inflight list. That's why we couldn't even notice the issue.
The exploitability of CVE-2024-35970 depends on two key factors: attack complexity (the level of effort required to execute an exploit) and privileges required (the access level an attacker needs).
CVE-2024-35970 presents an accessible attack vector with minimal effort required. Restricting access controls and implementing security updates are critical to reducing exploitation risks.
A lower complexity and fewer privilege requirements make exploitation easier. Security teams should evaluate these aspects to determine the urgency of mitigation strategies, such as patch management and access control policies.
Attack Complexity (AC) measures the difficulty in executing an exploit. A high AC means that specific conditions must be met, making an attack more challenging, while a low AC means the vulnerability can be exploited with minimal effort.
Privileges Required (PR) determine the level of system access necessary for an attack. Vulnerabilities requiring no privileges are more accessible to attackers, whereas high privilege requirements limit exploitation to authorized users with elevated access.
Above is the CVSS Sub-score Breakdown for CVE-2024-35970, illustrating how Base, Impact, and Exploitability factors combine to form the overall severity rating. A higher sub-score typically indicates a more severe or easier-to-exploit vulnerability.
Below is the Impact Analysis for CVE-2024-35970, showing how Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability might be affected if the vulnerability is exploited. Higher values usually signal greater potential damage.
The EPSS score estimates the probability that this vulnerability will be exploited in the near future.
EPSS Score: 0.045% (probability of exploit)
EPSS Percentile: 18.35%
(lower percentile = lower relative risk)
This vulnerability is less risky than approximately 81.65% of others.
Unknown
Stay updated with real-time CVE vulnerabilities and take action to secure your systems. Enhance your cybersecurity posture with the latest threat intelligence and mitigation techniques. Develop the skills necessary to defend against CVEs and secure critical infrastructures. Join the top cybersecurity professionals safeguarding today's infrastructures.