// For flags

CVE-2024-40998

ext4: fix uninitialized ratelimit_state->lock access in __ext4_fill_super()

Severity Score

"-"
*CVSS v-

Exploit Likelihood

*EPSS

Affected Versions

*CPE

Public Exploits

0
*Multiple Sources

Exploited in Wild

-
*KEV

Decision

Track
*SSVC
Descriptions

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

ext4: fix uninitialized ratelimit_state->lock access in __ext4_fill_super()

In the following concurrency we will access the uninitialized rs->lock:

ext4_fill_super
ext4_register_sysfs
// sysfs registered msg_ratelimit_interval_ms
// Other processes modify rs->interval to
// non-zero via msg_ratelimit_interval_ms
ext4_orphan_cleanup
ext4_msg(sb, KERN_INFO, "Errors on filesystem, "
__ext4_msg
___ratelimit(&(EXT4_SB(sb)->s_msg_ratelimit_state)
if (!rs->interval) // do nothing if interval is 0
return 1;
raw_spin_trylock_irqsave(&rs->lock, flags)
raw_spin_trylock(lock)
_raw_spin_trylock
__raw_spin_trylock
spin_acquire(&lock->dep_map, 0, 1, _RET_IP_)
lock_acquire
__lock_acquire
register_lock_class
assign_lock_key
dump_stack();
ratelimit_state_init(&sbi->s_msg_ratelimit_state, 5 * HZ, 10);
raw_spin_lock_init(&rs->lock);
// init rs->lock here

and get the following dump_stack:

=========================================================
INFO: trying to register non-static key.
The code is fine but needs lockdep annotation, or maybe
you didn't initialize this object before use?
turning off the locking correctness validator.
CPU: 12 PID: 753 Comm: mount Tainted: G E 6.7.0-rc6-next-20231222 #504
[...]
Call Trace:
dump_stack_lvl+0xc5/0x170
dump_stack+0x18/0x30
register_lock_class+0x740/0x7c0
__lock_acquire+0x69/0x13a0
lock_acquire+0x120/0x450
_raw_spin_trylock+0x98/0xd0
___ratelimit+0xf6/0x220
__ext4_msg+0x7f/0x160 [ext4]
ext4_orphan_cleanup+0x665/0x740 [ext4]
__ext4_fill_super+0x21ea/0x2b10 [ext4]
ext4_fill_super+0x14d/0x360 [ext4]
[...]
=========================================================

Normally interval is 0 until s_msg_ratelimit_state is initialized, so
___ratelimit() does nothing. But registering sysfs precedes initializing
rs->lock, so it is possible to change rs->interval to a non-zero value
via the msg_ratelimit_interval_ms interface of sysfs while rs->lock is
uninitialized, and then a call to ext4_msg triggers the problem by
accessing an uninitialized rs->lock. Therefore register sysfs after all
initializations are complete to avoid such problems.

*Credits: N/A
CVSS Scores
Attack Vector
-
Attack Complexity
-
Privileges Required
-
User Interaction
-
Scope
-
Confidentiality
-
Integrity
-
Availability
-
* Common Vulnerability Scoring System
SSVC
  • Decision:Track
Exploitation
None
Automatable
No
Tech. Impact
Partial
* Organization's Worst-case Scenario
Timeline
  • 2024-07-12 CVE Reserved
  • 2024-07-12 CVE Published
  • 2024-07-13 EPSS Updated
  • 2024-09-11 CVE Updated
  • ---------- Exploited in Wild
  • ---------- KEV Due Date
  • ---------- First Exploit
CWE
CAPEC
Affected Vendors, Products, and Versions
Vendor Product Version Other Status
Vendor Product Version Other Status <-- --> Vendor Product Version Other Status
Linux
Search vendor "Linux"
Linux Kernel
Search vendor "Linux" for product "Linux Kernel"
< 6.6.36
Search vendor "Linux" for product "Linux Kernel" and version " < 6.6.36"
en
Affected
Linux
Search vendor "Linux"
Linux Kernel
Search vendor "Linux" for product "Linux Kernel"
< 6.9.7
Search vendor "Linux" for product "Linux Kernel" and version " < 6.9.7"
en
Affected
Linux
Search vendor "Linux"
Linux Kernel
Search vendor "Linux" for product "Linux Kernel"
< 6.10
Search vendor "Linux" for product "Linux Kernel" and version " < 6.10"
en
Affected