CVE-2024-31076
CVE Descriptions
genirq/cpuhotplug, x86/vector: Prevent vector leak during CPU offline
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: genirq/cpuhotplug, x86/vector: Prevent vector leak during CPU offline The absence of IRQD_MOVE_PCNTXT prevents immediate effectiveness of interrupt affinity reconfiguration via procfs. Instead, the change is deferred until the next instance of the interrupt being triggered on the original CPU. When the interrupt next triggers on the original CPU, the new affinity is enforced within __irq_move_irq(). A vector is allocated from the new CPU, but the old vector on the original CPU remains and is not immediately reclaimed. Instead, apicd->move_in_progress is flagged, and the reclaiming process is delayed until the next trigger of the interrupt on the new CPU. Upon the subsequent triggering of the interrupt on the new CPU, irq_complete_move() adds a task to the old CPU's vector_cleanup list if it remains online. Subsequently, the timer on the old CPU iterates over its vector_cleanup list, reclaiming old vectors. However, a rare scenario arises if the old CPU is outgoing before the interrupt triggers again on the new CPU. In that case irq_force_complete_move() is not invoked on the outgoing CPU to reclaim the old apicd->prev_vector because the interrupt isn't currently affine to the outgoing CPU, and irq_needs_fixup() returns false. Even though __vector_schedule_cleanup() is later called on the new CPU, it doesn't reclaim apicd->prev_vector; instead, it simply resets both apicd->move_in_progress and apicd->prev_vector to 0. As a result, the vector remains unreclaimed in vector_matrix, leading to a CPU vector leak. To address this issue, move the invocation of irq_force_complete_move() before the irq_needs_fixup() call to reclaim apicd->prev_vector, if the interrupt is currently or used to be affine to the outgoing CPU. Additionally, reclaim the vector in __vector_schedule_cleanup() as well, following a warning message, although theoretically it should never see apicd->move_in_progress with apicd->prev_cpu pointing to an offline CPU.CVE Informations
Related Weaknesses
| Weakness Name | Source | |
|---|---|---|
| No informations. |
Metrics
| Metrics | Score | Severity | CVSS Vector | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| V3.1 | 5.5 | MEDIUM |
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
More informations
Base: Exploitabilty MetricsThe Exploitability metrics reflect the characteristics of the thing that is vulnerable, which we refer to formally as the vulnerable component. Attack Vector This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. Local The vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities. Attack Complexity This metric describes the conditions beyond the attacker’s control that must exist in order to exploit the vulnerability. Low Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success when attacking the vulnerable component. Privileges Required This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess before successfully exploiting the vulnerability. Low The attacker requires privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources. User Interaction This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable component. None The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any user. Base: Scope MetricsThe Scope metric captures whether a vulnerability in one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope. Scope Formally, a security authority is a mechanism (e.g., an application, an operating system, firmware, a sandbox environment) that defines and enforces access control in terms of how certain subjects/actors (e.g., human users, processes) can access certain restricted objects/resources (e.g., files, CPU, memory) in a controlled manner. All the subjects and objects under the jurisdiction of a single security authority are considered to be under one security scope. If a vulnerability in a vulnerable component can affect a component which is in a different security scope than the vulnerable component, a Scope change occurs. Intuitively, whenever the impact of a vulnerability breaches a security/trust boundary and impacts components outside the security scope in which vulnerable component resides, a Scope change occurs. Unchanged An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority. Base: Impact MetricsThe Impact metrics capture the effects of a successfully exploited vulnerability on the component that suffers the worst outcome that is most directly and predictably associated with the attack. Analysts should constrain impacts to a reasonable, final outcome which they are confident an attacker is able to achieve. Confidentiality Impact This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information resources managed by a software component due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. None There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component. Integrity Impact This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. None There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component. Availability Impact This metric measures the impact to the availability of the impacted component resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. High There is a total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable). Temporal MetricsThe Temporal metrics measure the current state of exploit techniques or code availability, the existence of any patches or workarounds, or the confidence in the description of a vulnerability. Environmental MetricsThese metrics enable the analyst to customize the CVSS score depending on the importance of the affected IT asset to a user’s organization, measured in terms of Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability. |
nvd@nist.gov |
EPSS
EPSS Score
EPSS Percentile
Products Mentioned
Configuraton 0
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 4.13 To (excluding) 4.19.316
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 4.20 To (excluding) 5.4.278
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.5 To (excluding) 5.10.219
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.11 To (excluding) 5.15.161
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.16 To (excluding) 6.1.93
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.2 To (excluding) 6.6.33
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.7 To (excluding) 6.9.4
