Bug 2320522 (CVE-2024-49980)

Summary: CVE-2024-49980 kernel: vrf: revert "vrf: Remove unnecessary RCU-bh critical section"
Product: [Other] Security Response Reporter: OSIDB Bzimport <bzimport>
Component: vulnerabilityAssignee: Product Security DevOps Team <prodsec-dev>
Status: NEW --- QA Contact:
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: unspecifiedCC: dfreiber, drow, jburrell, vkumar
Target Milestone: ---Keywords: Security
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On: 2321075    
Bug Blocks:    

Description OSIDB Bzimport 2024-10-21 19:07:49 UTC
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

vrf: revert "vrf: Remove unnecessary RCU-bh critical section"

This reverts commit 504fc6f4f7f681d2a03aa5f68aad549d90eab853.

dev_queue_xmit_nit is expected to be called with BH disabled.
__dev_queue_xmit has the following:

        /* Disable soft irqs for various locks below. Also
         * stops preemption for RCU.
         */
        rcu_read_lock_bh();

VRF must follow this invariant. The referenced commit removed this
protection. Which triggered a lockdep warning:

	================================
	WARNING: inconsistent lock state
	6.11.0 #1 Tainted: G        W
	--------------------------------
	inconsistent {IN-SOFTIRQ-W} -> {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} usage.
	btserver/134819 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE1:SE1] takes:
	ffff8882da30c118 (rlock-AF_PACKET){+.?.}-{2:2}, at: tpacket_rcv+0x863/0x3b30
	{IN-SOFTIRQ-W} state was registered at:
	  lock_acquire+0x19a/0x4f0
	  _raw_spin_lock+0x27/0x40
	  packet_rcv+0xa33/0x1320
	  __netif_receive_skb_core.constprop.0+0xcb0/0x3a90
	  __netif_receive_skb_list_core+0x2c9/0x890
	  netif_receive_skb_list_internal+0x610/0xcc0
          [...]

	other info that might help us debug this:
	 Possible unsafe locking scenario:

	       CPU0
	       ----
	  lock(rlock-AF_PACKET);
	  <Interrupt>
	    lock(rlock-AF_PACKET);

	 *** DEADLOCK ***

	Call Trace:
	 <TASK>
	 dump_stack_lvl+0x73/0xa0
	 mark_lock+0x102e/0x16b0
	 __lock_acquire+0x9ae/0x6170
	 lock_acquire+0x19a/0x4f0
	 _raw_spin_lock+0x27/0x40
	 tpacket_rcv+0x863/0x3b30
	 dev_queue_xmit_nit+0x709/0xa40
	 vrf_finish_direct+0x26e/0x340 [vrf]
	 vrf_l3_out+0x5f4/0xe80 [vrf]
	 __ip_local_out+0x51e/0x7a0
          [...]