Microsoft security update for CVE-2024-35917 — azl3 hyperv-daemons
🔗 CVE IDs covered (1)
📋 Microsoft's advisory
EchelonGraph does not copy Microsoft's advisory page: its FAQ and remediation text are not shown here. Read the advisory on https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2024-35917. This page also shows what EchelonGraph holds for CVE-2024-35917, with the description from its CVE record, which the CVE Numbering Authority that assigned the CVE wrote: for a CVE Microsoft assigned, often in the words of Microsoft's own advisory.
🎯 Affected products2
- azl3 hyperv-daemons 6.6.22.1-2 on Azure Linux 3.0
- azl3 hyperv-daemons 6.6.35.1-1 on Azure Linux 3.0
✅ Updates Microsoft lists: 1 update
1 row: one per KB article or update, update type and fixed build. Their details are on Microsoft's advisory.
| KB article | Update | Fixed build |
|---|---|---|
| — | Security Update | 6.6.35.1-1 |
🧭 EchelonGraph on CVE-2024-35917
- EchelonGraph score
- 5.5 MEDIUM
- CISA KEV
- Not listed
- Fix status
- A fix is available — apply it.
Description from the CVE record (CVE.org), as published by its numbering authority
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: s390/bpf: Fix bpf_plt pointer arithmetic Kui-Feng Lee reported a crash on s390x triggered by the dummy_st_ops/dummy_init_ptr_arg test [1]: [<0000000000000002>] 0x2 [<00000000009d5cde>] bpf_struct_ops_test_run+0x156/0x250 [<000000000033145a>] __sys_bpf+0xa1a/0xd00 [<00000000003319dc>] __s390x_sys_bpf+0x44/0x50 [<0000000000c4382c>] __do_syscall+0x244/0x300 [<0000000000c59a40>] system_call+0x70/0x98 This is caused by GCC moving memcpy() after assignments in bpf_jit_plt(), resulting in NULL pointers being written instead of the return and the target addresses. Looking at the GCC internals, the reordering is allowed because the alias analysis thinks that the memcpy() destination and the assignments' left-hand-sides are based on different objects: new_plt and bpf_plt_ret/bpf_plt_target respectively, and therefore they cannot alias. This is in turn due to a violation of the C standard: When two pointers are subtracted, both shall point to elements of the same array object, or one past the last element of the array object ... From the C's perspective, bpf_plt_ret and bpf_plt are distinct objects and cannot be subtracted. In the practical terms, doing so confuses the GCC's alias analysis. The code was written this way in order to let the C side know a few offsets defined in the assembly. While nice, this is by no means necessary. Fix the noncompliance by hardcoding these offsets. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected]/
Published by kernel.org, the CVE Numbering Authority that assigned CVE-2024-35917, in its CVE record at CVE.org; reused under the CVE Program's Terms of Use (its licence and MITRE's copyright notice are in our Terms of Service).