Skip to content

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been...

High severity Unreviewed Published Mar 6, 2025 to the GitHub Advisory Database • Updated Mar 6, 2025

Package

No package listedSuggest a package

Affected versions

Unknown

Patched versions

Unknown

Description

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

bpf: Reject struct_ops registration that uses module ptr and the module btf_id is missing

There is a UAF report in the bpf_struct_ops when CONFIG_MODULES=n.
In particular, the report is on tcp_congestion_ops that has
a "struct module *owner" member.

For struct_ops that has a "struct module *owner" member,
it can be extended either by the regular kernel module or
by the bpf_struct_ops. bpf_try_module_get() will be used
to do the refcounting and different refcount is done
based on the owner pointer. When CONFIG_MODULES=n,
the btf_id of the "struct module" is missing:

WARN: resolve_btfids: unresolved symbol module

Thus, the bpf_try_module_get() cannot do the correct refcounting.

Not all subsystem's struct_ops requires the "struct module *owner" member.
e.g. the recent sched_ext_ops.

This patch is to disable bpf_struct_ops registration if
the struct_ops has the "struct module *" member and the
"struct module" btf_id is missing. The btf_type_is_fwd() helper
is moved to the btf.h header file for this test.

This has happened since the beginning of bpf_struct_ops which has gone
through many changes. The Fixes tag is set to a recent commit that this
patch can apply cleanly. Considering CONFIG_MODULES=n is not
common and the age of the issue, targeting for bpf-next also.

References

Published by the National Vulnerability Database Mar 6, 2025
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Mar 6, 2025
Last updated Mar 6, 2025

Severity

High

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector
Local
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
High

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector: More severe the more the remote (logically and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerability.
Attack complexity: More severe for the least complex attacks.
Privileges required: More severe if no privileges are required.
User interaction: More severe when no user interaction is required.
Scope: More severe when a scope change occurs, e.g. one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope.
Confidentiality: More severe when loss of data confidentiality is highest, measuring the level of data access available to an unauthorized user.
Integrity: More severe when loss of data integrity is the highest, measuring the consequence of data modification possible by an unauthorized user.
Availability: More severe when the loss of impacted component availability is highest.
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

EPSS score

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

This score estimates the probability of this vulnerability being exploited within the next 30 days. Data provided by FIRST.
(18th percentile)

Weaknesses

CVE ID

CVE-2024-58060

GHSA ID

GHSA-4hqc-3j39-58mh

Source code

No known source code

Dependabot alerts are not supported on this advisory because it does not have a package from a supported ecosystem with an affected and fixed version.

Learn more about GitHub language support

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.