CVE-2024-56633

CVE-2024-56633 is a high-severity vulnerability in Linux Linux Kernel with a CVSS 3.x base score of 7.8. It is not currently listed as actively exploited by CISA, and its EPSS exploit-prediction score is low.

Key facts

Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: tcp_bpf: Fix the sk_mem_uncharge logic in tcp_bpf_sendmsg The current sk memory accounting logic in __SK_REDIRECT is pre-uncharging tosend bytes, which is either msg->sg.size or a smaller value apply_bytes. Potential problems with this strategy are as follows: - If the actual sent bytes are smaller than tosend, we need to charge some bytes back, as in line 487, which is okay but seems not clean. - When tosend is set to apply_bytes, as in line 417, and (ret < 0), we may miss uncharging (msg->sg.size - apply_bytes) bytes. [...] 415 tosend = msg->sg.size; 416 if (psock->apply_bytes && psock->apply_bytes < tosend) 417 tosend = psock->apply_bytes; [...] 443 sk_msg_return(sk, msg, tosend); 444 release_sock(sk); 446 origsize = msg->sg.size; 447 ret = tcp_bpf_sendmsg_redir(sk_redir, redir_ingress, 448 msg, tosend, flags); 449 sent = origsize - msg->sg.size; [...] 454 lock_sock(sk); 455 if (unlikely(ret < 0)) { 456 int free = sk_msg_free_nocharge(sk, msg); 458 if (!cork) 459 *copied -= free; 460 } [...] 487 if (eval == __SK_REDIRECT) 488 sk_mem_charge(sk, tosend - sent); [...] When running the selftest test_txmsg_redir_wait_sndmem with txmsg_apply, the following warning will be reported: ------------[ cut here ]------------ WARNING: CPU: 6 PID: 57 at net/ipv4/af_inet.c:156 inet_sock_destruct+0x190/0x1a0 Modules linked in: CPU: 6 UID: 0 PID: 57 Comm: kworker/6:0 Not tainted 6.12.0-rc1.bm.1-amd64+ #43 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.12.0-1 04/01/2014 Workqueue: events sk_psock_destroy RIP: 0010:inet_sock_destruct+0x190/0x1a0 RSP: 0018:ffffad0a8021fe08 EFLAGS: 00010206 RAX: 0000000000000011 RBX: ffff9aab4475b900 RCX: ffff9aab481a0800 RDX: 0000000000000303 RSI: 0000000000000011 RDI: ffff9aab4475b900 RBP: ffff9aab4475b990 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: ffff9aab40050ec0 R10: 0000000000000000 R11: ffff9aae6fdb1d01 R12: ffff9aab49c60400 R13: ffff9aab49c60598 R14: ffff9aab49c60598 R15: dead000000000100 FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff9aae6fd80000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 CR2: 00007ffec7e47bd8 CR3: 00000001a1a1c004 CR4: 0000000000770ef0 DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000 DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400 PKRU: 55555554 Call Trace: <TASK> ? __warn+0x89/0x130 ? inet_sock_destruct+0x190/0x1a0 ? report_bug+0xfc/0x1e0 ? handle_bug+0x5c/0xa0 ? exc_invalid_op+0x17/0x70 ? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x1a/0x20 ? inet_sock_destruct+0x190/0x1a0 __sk_destruct+0x25/0x220 sk_psock_destroy+0x2b2/0x310 process_scheduled_works+0xa3/0x3e0 worker_thread+0x117/0x240 ? __pfx_worker_thread+0x10/0x10 kthread+0xcf/0x100 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork+0x31/0x40 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30 </TASK> ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- In __SK_REDIRECT, a more concise way is delaying the uncharging after sent bytes are finalized, and uncharge this value. When (ret < 0), we shall invoke sk_msg_free. Same thing happens in case __SK_DROP, when tosend is set to apply_bytes, we may miss uncharging (msg->sg.size - apply_bytes) bytes. The same warning will be reported in selftest. [...] 468 case __SK_DROP: 469 default: 470 sk_msg_free_partial(sk, msg, tosend); 471 sk_msg_apply_bytes(psock, tosend); 472 *copied -= (tosend + delta); 473 return -EACCES; [...] So instead of sk_msg_free_partial we can do sk_msg_free here.

Frequently asked questions

What is CVE-2024-56633?
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: tcp_bpf: Fix the sk_mem_uncharge logic in tcp_bpf_sendmsg The current sk memory accounting logic in __SK_REDIRECT is pre-uncharging tosend bytes, which is either msg->sg.size or a smaller value apply_bytes. Potential problems with this strategy are as follows: - If the actual sent bytes are smaller than tosend, we need to charge some bytes back, as in line 487, which is okay but seems not clean. - When tosend is set to apply_bytes, as in line 417, and (ret < 0), we may miss uncharging (msg->sg.size - apply_bytes) bytes. [...] 415 tosend = msg->sg.size; 416 if (psock->apply_bytes && psock->apply_bytes < tosend) 417 tosend = psock->apply_bytes; [...] 443 sk_msg_return(sk, msg, tosend); 444 release_sock(sk); 446 origsize = msg->sg.size; 447 ret = tcp_bpf_sendmsg_redir(sk_redir, redir_ingress, 448 msg, tosend, flags); 449 sent = origsize - msg->sg.size; [...] 454 lock_sock(sk); 455 if (unlikely(ret < 0)) { 456 int free = sk_msg_free_nocharge(sk, msg); 458 if (!cork) 459 *copied -= free; 460 } [...] 487 if (eval == __SK_REDIRECT) 488 sk_mem_charge(sk, tosend - sent); [...] When running the selftest test_txmsg_redir_wait_sndmem with txmsg_apply, the following warning will be reported: ------------[ cut here ]------------ WARNING: CPU: 6 PID: 57 at net/ipv4/af_inet.c:156 inet_sock_destruct+0x190/0x1a0 Modules linked in: CPU: 6 UID: 0 PID: 57 Comm: kworker/6:0 Not tainted 6.12.0-rc1.bm.1-amd64+ #43 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.12.0-1 04/01/2014 Workqueue: events sk_psock_destroy RIP: 0010:inet_sock_destruct+0x190/0x1a0 RSP: 0018:ffffad0a8021fe08 EFLAGS: 00010206 RAX: 0000000000000011 RBX: ffff9aab4475b900 RCX: ffff9aab481a0800 RDX: 0000000000000303 RSI: 0000000000000011 RDI: ffff9aab4475b900 RBP: ffff9aab4475b990 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: ffff9aab40050ec0 R10: 0000000000000000 R11: ffff9aae6fdb1d01 R12: ffff9aab49c60400 R13: ffff9aab49c60598 R14: ffff9aab49c60598 R15: dead000000000100 FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff9aae6fd80000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 CR2: 00007ffec7e47bd8 CR3: 00000001a1a1c004 CR4: 0000000000770ef0 DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000 DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400 PKRU: 55555554 Call Trace: <TASK> ? __warn+0x89/0x130 ? inet_sock_destruct+0x190/0x1a0 ? report_bug+0xfc/0x1e0 ? handle_bug+0x5c/0xa0 ? exc_invalid_op+0x17/0x70 ? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x1a/0x20 ? inet_sock_destruct+0x190/0x1a0 __sk_destruct+0x25/0x220 sk_psock_destroy+0x2b2/0x310 process_scheduled_works+0xa3/0x3e0 worker_thread+0x117/0x240 ? __pfx_worker_thread+0x10/0x10 kthread+0xcf/0x100 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork+0x31/0x40 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30 </TASK> ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- In __SK_REDIRECT, a more concise way is delaying the uncharging after sent bytes are finalized, and uncharge this value. When (ret < 0), we shall invoke sk_msg_free. Same thing happens in case __SK_DROP, when tosend is set to apply_bytes, we may miss uncharging (msg->sg.size - apply_bytes) bytes. The same warning will be reported in selftest. [...] 468 case __SK_DROP: 469 default: 470 sk_msg_free_partial(sk, msg, tosend); 471 sk_msg_apply_bytes(psock, tosend); 472 *copied -= (tosend + delta); 473 return -EACCES; [...] So instead of sk_msg_free_partial we can do sk_msg_free here.
How severe is CVE-2024-56633?
CVE-2024-56633 has a CVSS 3.x base score of 7.8, rated high severity. It is exploitable over local access with low attack complexity, requires low privileges and no user interaction. Impact on confidentiality is high, integrity high, and availability high.
Is CVE-2024-56633 being actively exploited?
It is not currently listed in CISA's KEV catalog. Its EPSS exploit-prediction score is 0% (19th percentile), an estimate of the probability of exploitation in the next 30 days.
What products are affected by CVE-2024-56633?
CVE-2024-56633 primarily affects Linux Linux Kernel. In total, 2 product configurations (CPEs) are listed as vulnerable; see the affected-products list for the exact versions.
How do I fix CVE-2024-56633?
Review the linked vendor and NVD advisories for patched versions and mitigations, then upgrade or apply the recommended workaround. Given its high severity, prioritise patching exposed systems.
Does CVE-2024-56633 have an EU (EUVD) identifier?
Yes. CVE-2024-56633 is tracked in the ENISA EU Vulnerability Database (EUVD) as EUVD-2024-53281.
When was CVE-2024-56633 published?
CVE-2024-56633 was published on 2024-12-27 and last updated on 2026-06-17.

References

Affected products (2)

More vulnerabilities in Linux Linux Kernel

All CVEs affecting Linux Linux Kernel →