Skip to content

Wrong type for `Linker`-define functions when used across two `Engine`s

Moderate severity GitHub Reviewed Published Sep 17, 2021 in bytecodealliance/wasmtime • Updated Nov 19, 2024

Package

cargo wasmtime (Rust)

Affected versions

< 0.30.0

Patched versions

0.30.0
pip wasmtime (pip)
>= 0, < 0.30.0
0.30.0

Description

Impact

As a Rust library the wasmtime crate clearly marks which functions are safe and which are unsafe, guaranteeing that if consumers never use unsafe then it should not be possible to have memory unsafety issues in their embeddings of Wasmtime. An issue was discovered in the safe API of Linker::func_* APIs. These APIs were previously not sound when one Engine was used to create the Linker and then a different Engine was used to create a Store and then the Linker was used to instantiate a module into that Store. Cross-Engine usage of functions is not supported in Wasmtime and this can result in type confusion of function pointers, resulting in being able to safely call a function with the wrong type.

Triggering this bug requires using at least two Engine values in an embedding and then additionally using two different values with a Linker (one at the creation time of the Linker and another when instantiating a module with the Linker).

It's expected that usage of more-than-one Engine in an embedding is relatively rare since an Engine is intended to be a globally shared resource, so the expectation is that the impact of this issue is relatively small.

The fix implemented is to change this behavior to panic!() in Rust instead of silently allowing it. Using different Engine instances with a Linker is a programmer bug that wasmtime catches at runtime.

Patches

This bug has been patched and users should upgrade to Wasmtime version 0.30.0.

Workarounds

If you cannot upgrade Wasmtime and are using more than one Engine in your embedding it's recommended to instead use only one Engine for the entire program if possible. An Engine is designed to be a globally shared resource that is suitable to have only one for the lifetime of an entire process. If using multiple Engines is required then code should be audited to ensure that Linker is only used with one Engine.

For more information

If you have any questions or comments about this advisory:

References

@fitzgen fitzgen published to bytecodealliance/wasmtime Sep 17, 2021
Reviewed Sep 17, 2021
Published by the National Vulnerability Database Sep 17, 2021
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Sep 20, 2021
Last updated Nov 19, 2024

Severity

Moderate

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector Local
Attack Complexity Low
Attack Requirements Present
Privileges Required None
User interaction Passive
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity High
Availability High
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability None

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector: This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. This metric value (and consequently the resulting severity) will be larger the more remote (logically, and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerable system. The assumption is that the number of potential attackers for a vulnerability that could be exploited from across a network is larger than the number of potential attackers that could exploit a vulnerability requiring physical access to a device, and therefore warrants a greater severity.
Attack Complexity: This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit. These are conditions whose primary purpose is to increase security and/or increase exploit engineering complexity. A vulnerability exploitable without a target-specific variable has a lower complexity than a vulnerability that would require non-trivial customization. This metric is meant to capture security mechanisms utilized by the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These differ from security-enhancing techniques/technologies (ref Attack Complexity) as the primary purpose of these conditions is not to explicitly mitigate attacks, but rather, emerge naturally as a consequence of the deployment and execution of the vulnerable system.
Privileges Required: This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. The method by which the attacker obtains privileged credentials prior to the attack (e.g., free trial accounts), is outside the scope of this metric. Generally, self-service provisioned accounts do not constitute a privilege requirement if the attacker can grant themselves privileges as part of the attack.
User interaction: This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system. This metric determines whether the vulnerability can be exploited solely at the will of the attacker, or whether a separate user (or user-initiated process) must participate in some manner.
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the VULNERABLE SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

EPSS score

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

This score estimates the probability of this vulnerability being exploited within the next 30 days. Data provided by FIRST.
(23rd percentile)

Weaknesses

Access of Resource Using Incompatible Type ('Type Confusion')

The product allocates or initializes a resource such as a pointer, object, or variable using one type, but it later accesses that resource using a type that is incompatible with the original type. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2021-39219

GHSA ID

GHSA-q879-9g95-56mx

Source code

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.