Bug 2324599 (CVE-2024-50186)

Summary: CVE-2024-50186 kernel: net: explicitly clear the sk pointer, when pf->create fails
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: 2324686    
Bug Blocks:    

Description OSIDB Bzimport 2024-11-08 13:47:38 UTC
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

net: explicitly clear the sk pointer, when pf->create fails

We have recently noticed the exact same KASAN splat as in commit
6cd4a78d962b ("net: do not leave a dangling sk pointer, when socket
creation fails"). The problem is that commit did not fully address the
problem, as some pf->create implementations do not use sk_common_release
in their error paths.

For example, we can use the same reproducer as in the above commit, but
changing ping to arping. arping uses AF_PACKET socket and if packet_create
fails, it will just sk_free the allocated sk object.

While we could chase all the pf->create implementations and make sure they
NULL the freed sk object on error from the socket, we can't guarantee
future protocols will not make the same mistake.

So it is easier to just explicitly NULL the sk pointer upon return from
pf->create in __sock_create. We do know that pf->create always releases the
allocated sk object on error, so if the pointer is not NULL, it is
definitely dangling.

Comment 2 errata-xmlrpc 2025-05-13 08:33:55 UTC
This issue has been addressed in the following products:

  Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9

Via RHSA-2025:6966 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2025:6966