Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:HSummary
CVE-2024-26669 is a high-severity Out-of-bounds Write (CWE-787) vulnerability in Linux Linux Kernel. Its CVSS base score is 7.1 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 15th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SA-15 (Development Process, Standards, and Tools) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-23931
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net/sched: flower: Fix chain template offload When a qdisc is deleted from a net device the stack instructs the underlying driver to remove its flow offload callback from the associated…
more
filter block using the 'FLOW_BLOCK_UNBIND' command. The stack then continues to replay the removal of the filters in the block for this driver by iterating over the chains in the block and invoking the 'reoffload' operation of the classifier being used. In turn, the classifier in its 'reoffload' operation prepares and emits a 'FLOW_CLS_DESTROY' command for each filter. However, the stack does not do the same for chain templates and the underlying driver never receives a 'FLOW_CLS_TMPLT_DESTROY' command when a qdisc is deleted. This results in a memory leak [1] which can be reproduced using [2]. Fix by introducing a 'tmplt_reoffload' operation and have the stack invoke it with the appropriate arguments as part of the replay. Implement the operation in the sole classifier that supports chain templates (flower) by emitting the 'FLOW_CLS_TMPLT_{CREATE,DESTROY}' command based on whether a flow offload callback is being bound to a filter block or being unbound from one. As far as I can tell, the issue happens since cited commit which reordered tcf_block_offload_unbind() before tcf_block_flush_all_chains() in __tcf_block_put(). The order cannot be reversed as the filter block is expected to be freed after flushing all the chains. [1] unreferenced object 0xffff888107e28800 (size 2048): comm "tc", pid 1079, jiffies 4294958525 (age 3074.287s) hex dump (first 32 bytes): b1 a6 7c 11 81 88 ff ff e0 5b b3 10 81 88 ff ff ..|......[...... 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 e0 aa b0 84 ff ff ff ff ................ backtrace: [<ffffffff81c06a68>] __kmem_cache_alloc_node+0x1e8/0x320 [<ffffffff81ab374e>] __kmalloc+0x4e/0x90 [<ffffffff832aec6d>] mlxsw_sp_acl_ruleset_get+0x34d/0x7a0 [<ffffffff832bc195>] mlxsw_sp_flower_tmplt_create+0x145/0x180 [<ffffffff832b2e1a>] mlxsw_sp_flow_block_cb+0x1ea/0x280 [<ffffffff83a10613>] tc_setup_cb_call+0x183/0x340 [<ffffffff83a9f85a>] fl_tmplt_create+0x3da/0x4c0 [<ffffffff83a22435>] tc_ctl_chain+0xa15/0x1170 [<ffffffff838a863c>] rtnetlink_rcv_msg+0x3cc/0xed0 [<ffffffff83ac87f0>] netlink_rcv_skb+0x170/0x440 [<ffffffff83ac6270>] netlink_unicast+0x540/0x820 [<ffffffff83ac6e28>] netlink_sendmsg+0x8d8/0xda0 [<ffffffff83793def>] ____sys_sendmsg+0x30f/0xa80 [<ffffffff8379d29a>] ___sys_sendmsg+0x13a/0x1e0 [<ffffffff8379d50c>] __sys_sendmsg+0x11c/0x1f0 [<ffffffff843b9ce0>] do_syscall_64+0x40/0xe0 unreferenced object 0xffff88816d2c0400 (size 1024): comm "tc", pid 1079, jiffies 4294958525 (age 3074.287s) hex dump (first 32 bytes): 40 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 57 f6 38 be 00 00 00 00 @.......W.8..... 10 04 2c 6d 81 88 ff ff 10 04 2c 6d 81 88 ff ff ..,m......,m.... backtrace: [<ffffffff81c06a68>] __kmem_cache_alloc_node+0x1e8/0x320 [<ffffffff81ab36c1>] __kmalloc_node+0x51/0x90 [<ffffffff81a8ed96>] kvmalloc_node+0xa6/0x1f0 [<ffffffff82827d03>] bucket_table_alloc.isra.0+0x83/0x460 [<ffffffff82828d2b>] rhashtable_init+0x43b/0x7c0 [<ffffffff832aed48>] mlxsw_sp_acl_ruleset_get+0x428/0x7a0 [<ffffffff832bc195>] mlxsw_sp_flower_tmplt_create+0x145/0x180 [<ffffffff832b2e1a>] mlxsw_sp_flow_block_cb+0x1ea/0x280 [<ffffffff83a10613>] tc_setup_cb_call+0x183/0x340 [<ffffffff83a9f85a>] fl_tmplt_create+0x3da/0x4c0 [<ffffffff83a22435>] tc_ctl_chain+0xa15/0x1170 [<ffffffff838a863c>] rtnetlink_rcv_msg+0x3cc/0xed0 [<ffffffff83ac87f0>] netlink_rcv_skb+0x170/0x440 [<ffffffff83ac6270>] netlink_unicast+0x540/0x820 [<ffffffff83ac6e28>] netlink_sendmsg+0x8d8/0xda0 [<ffffffff83793def>] ____sys_sendmsg+0x30f/0xa80 [2] # tc qdisc add dev swp1 clsact # tc chain add dev swp1 ingress proto ip chain 1 flower dst_ip 0.0.0.0/32 # tc qdisc del dev ---truncated---
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation (including fuzzing and bounds checks) finds out-of-bounds write flaws before deployment.
Requiring documented secure-development standards and tools can mandate bounds-checked coding practices that avoid the weakness.
Input validation can structurally reject or sanitize data that would otherwise trigger an out-of-bounds write.
Memory-protection mechanisms limit the exploitability and blast radius of a successful out-of-bounds write.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure-development practices (static analysis, bounds checking, code review) are the primary means of preventing out-of-bounds writes.
Vulnerability scanning and recording can discover out-of-bounds write flaws so they can be remediated.
Patching or replacing vulnerable software directly eliminates known instances of this coding weakness.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Security testing in development and acceptance can detect and prevent out-of-bounds write defects.
Secure development life cycle mandates practices that prevent out-of-bounds writes.
Application security requirements can specify bounds-checking and safe memory handling.
Secure architecture and engineering principles reduce the likelihood of buffer overflows.
Secure coding directly addresses out-of-bounds writes through language choice and coding standards.
Change management can enforce review gates that catch unsafe memory operations before deployment.