CVE-2024-56592 Vulnerability Analysis & Exploit Details

CVE-2024-56592
Vulnerability Scoring

Analysis In Progress

Attack Complexity Details

Attack Complexity:
Attack Complexity Analysis In Progress
Attack Vector:
Attack Vector Under Analysis
Privileges Required: None
No authentication is required for exploitation.
Scope:
Impact is confined to the initially vulnerable component.
User Interaction: None
No user interaction is necessary for exploitation.

CVE-2024-56592 Details

Status: Received on 27 Dec 2024, 15:15 UTC

Published on: 27 Dec 2024, 15:15 UTC

CVSS Release:

CVE-2024-56592 Vulnerability Summary

CVE-2024-56592: In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: bpf: Call free_htab_elem() after htab_unlock_bucket() For htab of maps, when the map is removed from the htab, it may hold the last reference of the map. bpf_map_fd_put_ptr() will invoke bpf_map_free_id() to free the id of the removed map element. However, bpf_map_fd_put_ptr() is invoked while holding a bucket lock (raw_spin_lock_t), and bpf_map_free_id() attempts to acquire map_idr_lock (spinlock_t), triggering the following lockdep warning: ============================= [ BUG: Invalid wait context ] 6.11.0-rc4+ #49 Not tainted ----------------------------- test_maps/4881 is trying to lock: ffffffff84884578 (map_idr_lock){+...}-{3:3}, at: bpf_map_free_id.part.0+0x21/0x70 other info that might help us debug this: context-{5:5} 2 locks held by test_maps/4881: #0: ffffffff846caf60 (rcu_read_lock){....}-{1:3}, at: bpf_fd_htab_map_update_elem+0xf9/0x270 #1: ffff888149ced148 (&htab->lockdep_key#2){....}-{2:2}, at: htab_map_update_elem+0x178/0xa80 stack backtrace: CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 4881 Comm: test_maps Not tainted 6.11.0-rc4+ #49 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), ... Call Trace: <TASK> dump_stack_lvl+0x6e/0xb0 dump_stack+0x10/0x20 __lock_acquire+0x73e/0x36c0 lock_acquire+0x182/0x450 _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x43/0x70 bpf_map_free_id.part.0+0x21/0x70 bpf_map_put+0xcf/0x110 bpf_map_fd_put_ptr+0x9a/0xb0 free_htab_elem+0x69/0xe0 htab_map_update_elem+0x50f/0xa80 bpf_fd_htab_map_update_elem+0x131/0x270 htab_map_update_elem+0x50f/0xa80 bpf_fd_htab_map_update_elem+0x131/0x270 bpf_map_update_value+0x266/0x380 __sys_bpf+0x21bb/0x36b0 __x64_sys_bpf+0x45/0x60 x64_sys_call+0x1b2a/0x20d0 do_syscall_64+0x5d/0x100 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e One way to fix the lockdep warning is using raw_spinlock_t for map_idr_lock as well. However, bpf_map_alloc_id() invokes idr_alloc_cyclic() after acquiring map_idr_lock, it will trigger a similar lockdep warning because the slab's lock (s->cpu_slab->lock) is still a spinlock. Instead of changing map_idr_lock's type, fix the issue by invoking htab_put_fd_value() after htab_unlock_bucket(). However, only deferring the invocation of htab_put_fd_value() is not enough, because the old map pointers in htab of maps can not be saved during batched deletion. Therefore, also defer the invocation of free_htab_elem(), so these to-be-freed elements could be linked together similar to lru map. There are four callers for ->map_fd_put_ptr: (1) alloc_htab_elem() (through htab_put_fd_value()) It invokes ->map_fd_put_ptr() under a raw_spinlock_t. The invocation of htab_put_fd_value() can not simply move after htab_unlock_bucket(), because the old element has already been stashed in htab->extra_elems. It may be reused immediately after htab_unlock_bucket() and the invocation of htab_put_fd_value() after htab_unlock_bucket() may release the newly-added element incorrectly. Therefore, saving the map pointer of the old element for htab of maps before unlocking the bucket and releasing the map_ptr after unlock. Beside the map pointer in the old element, should do the same thing for the special fields in the old element as well. (2) free_htab_elem() (through htab_put_fd_value()) Its caller includes __htab_map_lookup_and_delete_elem(), htab_map_delete_elem() and __htab_map_lookup_and_delete_batch(). For htab_map_delete_elem(), simply invoke free_htab_elem() after htab_unlock_bucket(). For __htab_map_lookup_and_delete_batch(), just like lru map, linking the to-be-freed element into node_to_free list and invoking free_htab_elem() for these element after unlock. It is safe to reuse batch_flink as the link for node_to_free, because these elements have been removed from the hash llist. Because htab of maps doesn't support lookup_and_delete operation, __htab_map_lookup_and_delete_elem() doesn't have the problem, so kept it as ---truncated---

Assessing the Risk of CVE-2024-56592

Access Complexity Graph

The exploitability of CVE-2024-56592 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).

Exploitability Analysis for CVE-2024-56592

No exploitability data is available for CVE-2024-56592.

Understanding AC and PR

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.

CVSS Score Breakdown Chart

Above is the CVSS Sub-score Breakdown for CVE-2024-56592, 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.

CIA Impact Analysis

Below is the Impact Analysis for CVE-2024-56592, showing how Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability might be affected if the vulnerability is exploited. Higher values usually signal greater potential damage.

Confidentiality: None
CVE-2024-56592 does not compromise confidentiality.
Integrity: None
CVE-2024-56592 does not impact data integrity.
Availability: None
CVE-2024-56592 does not affect system availability.

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

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: 18.4% (lower percentile = lower relative risk)
This vulnerability is less risky than approximately 81.6% of others.

CVE-2024-56592 References

External References

CWE Common Weakness Enumeration

Unknown

Protect Your Infrastructure against CVE-2024-56592: Combat Critical CVE Threats

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.

Other 5 Recently Published CVEs Vulnerabilities

CVE-2025-31203 – An integer overflow was addressed with improved input validation. This issue is fixed in macOS Sequoia 15.4, tvOS 18.4, iPadOS 17.7.6, macOS Sonoma...
CVE-2025-31202 – A null pointer dereference was addressed with improved input validation. This issue is fixed in iOS 18.4 and iPadOS 18.4, macOS Sequoia 15.4, tvOS ...
CVE-2025-31197 – The issue was addressed with improved checks. This issue is fixed in macOS Sequoia 15.4, tvOS 18.4, macOS Ventura 13.7.5, iPadOS 17.7.6, macOS Sono...
CVE-2025-30445 – A type confusion issue was addressed with improved checks. This issue is fixed in macOS Sequoia 15.4, tvOS 18.4, macOS Ventura 13.7.5, iPadOS 17.7....
CVE-2025-24271 – An access issue was addressed with improved access restrictions. This issue is fixed in macOS Sequoia 15.4, tvOS 18.4, macOS Ventura 13.7.5, iPadOS...