CVE-2024-58060

{"cve": {"data_type": "CVE", "references": {"reference_data": [{"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/2324fb4e92092837ee278fdd8d60c48ee1a619ce", "name": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/2324fb4e92092837ee278fdd8d60c48ee1a619ce", "tags": ["Patch"], "refsource": ""}, {"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/96ea081ed52bf077cad6d00153b6fba68e510767", "name": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/96ea081ed52bf077cad6d00153b6fba68e510767", "tags": ["Patch"], "refsource": ""}, {"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/b777b14c2a4a4e2322daf8e8ffd42d2b88831b17", "name": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/b777b14c2a4a4e2322daf8e8ffd42d2b88831b17", "tags": ["Patch"], "refsource": ""}]}, "data_format": "MITRE", "description": {"description_data": [{"lang": "en", "value": "In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:\n\nbpf: Reject struct_ops registration that uses module ptr and the module btf_id is missing\n\nThere is a UAF report in the bpf_struct_ops when CONFIG_MODULES=n.\nIn particular, the report is on tcp_congestion_ops that has\na \"struct module *owner\" member.\n\nFor struct_ops that has a \"struct module *owner\" member,\nit can be extended either by the regular kernel module or\nby the bpf_struct_ops. bpf_try_module_get() will be used\nto do the refcounting and different refcount is done\nbased on the owner pointer. When CONFIG_MODULES=n,\nthe btf_id of the \"struct module\" is missing:\n\nWARN: resolve_btfids: unresolved symbol module\n\nThus, the bpf_try_module_get() cannot do the correct refcounting.\n\nNot all subsystem's struct_ops requires the \"struct module *owner\" member.\ne.g. the recent sched_ext_ops.\n\nThis patch is to disable bpf_struct_ops registration if\nthe struct_ops has the \"struct module *\" member and the\n\"struct module\" btf_id is missing. The btf_type_is_fwd() helper\nis moved to the btf.h header file for this test.\n\nThis has happened since the beginning of bpf_struct_ops which has gone\nthrough many changes. The Fixes tag is set to a recent commit that this\npatch can apply cleanly. Considering CONFIG_MODULES=n is not\ncommon and the age of the issue, targeting for bpf-next also."}]}, "problemtype": {"problemtype_data": [{"description": []}]}, "data_version": "4.0", "CVE_data_meta": {"ID": "CVE-2024-58060", "ASSIGNER": "cve@kernel.org"}}, "impact": {}, "publishedDate": "2025-03-06T16:15Z", "configurations": {"nodes": [{"children": [], "operator": "OR", "cpe_match": [{"cpe23Uri": "cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*", "cpe_name": [], "vulnerable": true, "versionEndExcluding": "6.13.2", "versionStartIncluding": "6.13"}, {"cpe23Uri": "cpe:2.3:o:linux:linux_kernel:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*", "cpe_name": [], "vulnerable": true, "versionEndExcluding": "6.12.13", "versionStartIncluding": "6.9"}]}], "CVE_data_version": "4.0"}, "lastModifiedDate": "2025-03-21T15:41Z"}