Security assessments indicate that CVE-2024-53044 presents a notable risk, potentially requiring prompt mitigation.
Status: Analyzed
Last updated: 🕟 27 Nov 2024, 16:40 UTC
Originally published on: 🕕 19 Nov 2024, 18:15 UTC
Time between publication and last update: 7 days
CVSS Release: version 3
nvd@nist.gov
Primary
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVE-2024-53044: In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net/sched: sch_api: fix xa_insert() error path in tcf_block_get_ext() This command: $ tc qdisc replace dev eth0 ingress_block 1 egress_block 1 clsact Error: block dev insert failed: -EBUSY. fails because user space requests the same block index to be set for both ingress and egress. [ side note, I don't think it even failed prior to commit 913b47d3424e ("net/sched: Introduce tc block netdev tracking infra"), because this is a command from an old set of notes of mine which used to work, but alas, I did not scientifically bisect this ] The problem is not that it fails, but rather, that the second time around, it fails differently (and irrecoverably): $ tc qdisc replace dev eth0 ingress_block 1 egress_block 1 clsact Error: dsa_core: Flow block cb is busy. [ another note: the extack is added by me for illustration purposes. the context of the problem is that clsact_init() obtains the same &q->ingress_block pointer as &q->egress_block, and since we call tcf_block_get_ext() on both of them, "dev" will be added to the block->ports xarray twice, thus failing the operation: once through the ingress block pointer, and once again through the egress block pointer. the problem itself is that when xa_insert() fails, we have emitted a FLOW_BLOCK_BIND command through ndo_setup_tc(), but the offload never sees a corresponding FLOW_BLOCK_UNBIND. ] Even correcting the bad user input, we still cannot recover: $ tc qdisc replace dev swp3 ingress_block 1 egress_block 2 clsact Error: dsa_core: Flow block cb is busy. Basically the only way to recover is to reboot the system, or unbind and rebind the net device driver. To fix the bug, we need to fill the correct error teardown path which was missed during code movement, and call tcf_block_offload_unbind() when xa_insert() fails. [ last note, fundamentally I blame the label naming convention in tcf_block_get_ext() for the bug. The labels should be named after what they do, not after the error path that jumps to them. This way, it is obviously wrong that two labels pointing to the same code mean something is wrong, and checking the code correctness at the goto site is also easier ]
The exploitability of CVE-2024-53044 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-2024-53044 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-2024-53044, 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-2024-53044, 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: 0.043% (probability of exploit)
EPSS Percentile: 12.0%
(lower percentile = lower relative risk)
This vulnerability is less risky than approximately 88.0% of others.
NVD-CWE-noinfo
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.