Bug 2311707 (CVE-2024-45010) - CVE-2024-45010 kernel: mptcp: pm: only mark 'subflow' endp as available
Summary: CVE-2024-45010 kernel: mptcp: pm: only mark 'subflow' endp as available
Keywords:
Status: NEW
Alias: CVE-2024-45010
Product: Security Response
Classification: Other
Component: vulnerability
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Product Security DevOps Team
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On: 2311737
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2024-09-11 16:20 UTC by OSIDB Bzimport
Modified: 2025-05-13 08:28 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed:
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Product Errata RHSA-2025:6966 0 None None None 2025-05-13 08:28:06 UTC

Description OSIDB Bzimport 2024-09-11 16:20:42 UTC
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

mptcp: pm: only mark 'subflow' endp as available

Adding the following warning ...

  WARN_ON_ONCE(msk->pm.local_addr_used == 0)

... before decrementing the local_addr_used counter helped to find a bug
when running the "remove single address" subtest from the mptcp_join.sh
selftests.

Removing a 'signal' endpoint will trigger the removal of all subflows
linked to this endpoint via mptcp_pm_nl_rm_addr_or_subflow() with
rm_type == MPTCP_MIB_RMSUBFLOW. This will decrement the local_addr_used
counter, which is wrong in this case because this counter is linked to
'subflow' endpoints, and here it is a 'signal' endpoint that is being
removed.

Now, the counter is decremented, only if the ID is being used outside
of mptcp_pm_nl_rm_addr_or_subflow(), only for 'subflow' endpoints, and
if the ID is not 0 -- local_addr_used is not taking into account these
ones. This marking of the ID as being available, and the decrement is
done no matter if a subflow using this ID is currently available,
because the subflow could have been closed before.

Comment 3 errata-xmlrpc 2025-05-13 08:28:05 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


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.