CVE-2024-41009

bpf: Fix overrunning reservations in ringbuf

MEDIUM
5.5
CVSS Score
Published: July 17, 2024 at 06:10 AM UTC
Updated: August 5, 2026 at 12:04 PM UTC
1 product affected across 1 vendorLinux Kernel

Using Linux by Linux?

Get instant alerts when new vulnerabilities affect Linux - before attackers find them.

Real-time alertsTrack your software stackFree plan available
Severity
MEDIUM5.5
Exploit prediction
EPSS 0.3%
SSVC
No known exploit

Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: bpf: Fix overrunning reservations in ringbuf The BPF ring buffer internally is implemented as a power-of-2 sized circular buffer, with two logical and ever-increasing counters: consumer_pos is the consumer counter to show which logical position the consumer consumed the data, and producer_pos which is the producer counter denoting the amount of data reserved by all producers. Each time a record is reserved, the producer that "owns" the record will successfully advance producer counter. In user space each time a record is read, the consumer of the data advanced the consumer counter once it finished processing. Both counters are stored in separate pages so that from user space, the producer counter is read-only and the consumer counter is read-write. One aspect that simplifies and thus speeds up the implementation of both producers and consumers is how the data area is mapped twice contiguously back-to-back in the virtual memory, allowing to not take any special measures for samples that have to wrap around at the end of the circular buffer data area, because the next page after the last data page would be first data page again, and thus the sample will still appear completely contiguous in virtual memory. Each record has a struct bpf_ringbuf_hdr { u32 len; u32 pg_off; } header for book-keeping the length and offset, and is inaccessible to the BPF program. Helpers like bpf_ringbuf_reserve() return `(void *)hdr + BPF_RINGBUF_HDR_SZ` for the BPF program to use. Bing-Jhong and Muhammad reported that it is however possible to make a second allocated memory chunk overlapping with the first chunk and as a result, the BPF program is now able to edit first chunk's header. For example, consider the creation of a BPF_MAP_TYPE_RINGBUF map with size of 0x4000. Next, the consumer_pos is modified to 0x3000 /before/ a call to bpf_ringbuf_reserve() is made. This will allocate a chunk A, which is in [0x0,0x3008], and the BPF program is able to edit [0x8,0x3008]. Now, lets allocate a chunk B with size 0x3000. This will succeed because consumer_pos was edited ahead of time to pass the `new_prod_pos - cons_pos > rb->mask` check. Chunk B will be in range [0x3008,0x6010], and the BPF program is able to edit [0x3010,0x6010]. Due to the ring buffer memory layout mentioned earlier, the ranges [0x0,0x4000] and [0x4000,0x8000] point to the same data pages. This means that chunk B at [0x4000,0x4008] is chunk A's header. bpf_ringbuf_submit() / bpf_ringbuf_discard() use the header's pg_off to then locate the bpf_ringbuf itself via bpf_ringbuf_restore_from_rec(). Once chunk B modified chunk A's header, then bpf_ringbuf_commit() refers to the wrong page and could cause a crash. Fix it by calculating the oldest pending_pos and check whether the range from the oldest outstanding record to the newest would span beyond the ring buffer size. If that is the case, then reject the request. We've tested with the ring buffer benchmark in BPF selftests (./benchs/run_bench_ringbufs.sh) before/after the fix and while it seems a bit slower on some benchmarks, it is still not significantly enough to matter.

Affected

Our own answer: ranges merged, affected separated from platform-only, with confidence and review flags.

5.8 ≤ v < 5.10.2235.8 ≤ v < 5.15.1645.8 ≤ v < 6.1.975.8 ≤ v < 6.105.8 ≤ v < 6.6.375.8 ≤ v < 6.9.86.2 ≤ v < 6.6.376.7 ≤ v < 6.9.8457f44363a8894135c85b7a9afd2bd8196db24ab5.8
Vendor states this is fixed in 0f98f40eb1ed52af8b81f61901b6c0289ff59de4 (fixed)
Vendor states this is fixed in 47416c852f2a04d348ea66ee451cbdcf8119f225 (fixed)
Vendor states this is fixed in 511804ab701c0503b72eac08217eabfd366ba069 (fixed)
Vendor states this is fixed in be35504b959f2749bab280f4671e8df96dcf836f (fixed)
Vendor states this is fixed in cfa1a2329a691ffd991fcf7248a57d752e712881 (fixed)
Vendor states this is fixed in d1b9df0435bc61e0b44f578846516df8ef476686 (fixed)
Vendor states this is fixed in 5.10.223 (unaffected)
Vendor states this is fixed in 5.15.164 (unaffected)
Vendor states this is fixed in 5.8 (unaffected)
Vendor states this is fixed in 6.1.97 (unaffected)
Vendor states this is fixed in 6.10 (unaffected)
Vendor states this is fixed in 6.6.37 (unaffected)
Vendor states this is fixed in 6.9.8 (unaffected)

References (7)

Mailing ListPatch
Source: 416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67
https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/47416c852f2a04d348ea66ee451cbdcf8119f225
Mailing ListPatch
Source: 416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67
https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/511804ab701c0503b72eac08217eabfd366ba069
Mailing ListPatch
Source: 416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67
https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/cfa1a2329a691ffd991fcf7248a57d752e712881
Mailing ListPatch
Source: 416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67
https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/d1b9df0435bc61e0b44f578846516df8ef476686
Source: af854a3a-2127-422b-91ae-364da2661108
https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2025/01/msg00001.html

SSVC — Action Prioritization

SSVCNo known exploitNot automatablePartial impact

SSVC signals action urgency (what to patch first), separate from CVSS which measures severity.

CVSS

Attack Vector
LOCAL
Complexity
LOW
Privileges
LOW
User Interaction
NONE
Scope
UNCHANGED
Confidentiality
NONE
Integrity
NONE
Availability
HIGH
Vector?

Quick Info

StatusMODIFIED
CWE
CWE-770

Get alerted

Stop reading CVE feeds looking for your own stack

Track the products you run and VulnTracker tells you when a new CVE affects them — with what is known about fixing it, and nothing about the rest.

Free plan, no card