Security assessments indicate that CVE-2024-53071 presents a notable risk, potentially requiring prompt mitigation.
Status: Analyzed
Last updated: 🕙 26 Nov 2024, 22:18 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-2024-53071: In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: drm/panthor: Be stricter about IO mapping flags The current panthor_device_mmap_io() implementation has two issues: 1. For mapping DRM_PANTHOR_USER_FLUSH_ID_MMIO_OFFSET, panthor_device_mmap_io() bails if VM_WRITE is set, but does not clear VM_MAYWRITE. That means userspace can use mprotect() to make the mapping writable later on. This is a classic Linux driver gotcha. I don't think this actually has any impact in practice: When the GPU is powered, writes to the FLUSH_ID seem to be ignored; and when the GPU is not powered, the dummy_latest_flush page provided by the driver is deliberately designed to not do any flushes, so the only thing writing to the dummy_latest_flush could achieve would be to make *more* flushes happen. 2. panthor_device_mmap_io() does not block MAP_PRIVATE mappings (which are mappings without the VM_SHARED flag). MAP_PRIVATE in combination with VM_MAYWRITE indicates that the VMA has copy-on-write semantics, which for VM_PFNMAP are semi-supported but fairly cursed. In particular, in such a mapping, the driver can only install PTEs during mmap() by calling remap_pfn_range() (because remap_pfn_range() wants to **store the physical address of the mapped physical memory into the vm_pgoff of the VMA**); installing PTEs later on with a fault handler (as panthor does) is not supported in private mappings, and so if you try to fault in such a mapping, vmf_insert_pfn_prot() splats when it hits a BUG() check. Fix it by clearing the VM_MAYWRITE flag (userspace writing to the FLUSH_ID doesn't make sense) and requiring VM_SHARED (copy-on-write semantics for the FLUSH_ID don't make sense). Reproducers for both scenarios are in the notes of my patch on the mailing list; I tested that these bugs exist on a Rock 5B machine. Note that I only compile-tested the patch, I haven't tested it; I don't have a working kernel build setup for the test machine yet. Please test it before applying it.
The exploitability of CVE-2024-53071 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-2024-53071 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-2024-53071, 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-2024-53071, 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.