CVE Descriptions
sched/rt: Fix race in push_rt_task
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: sched/rt: Fix race in push_rt_task Overview ======== When a CPU chooses to call push_rt_task and picks a task to push to another CPU's runqueue then it will call find_lock_lowest_rq method which would take a double lock on both CPUs' runqueues. If one of the locks aren't readily available, it may lead to dropping the current runqueue lock and reacquiring both the locks at once. During this window it is possible that the task is already migrated and is running on some other CPU. These cases are already handled. However, if the task is migrated and has already been executed and another CPU is now trying to wake it up (ttwu) such that it is queued again on the runqeue (on_rq is 1) and also if the task was run by the same CPU, then the current checks will pass even though the task was migrated out and is no longer in the pushable tasks list. Crashes ======= This bug resulted in quite a few flavors of crashes triggering kernel panics with various crash signatures such as assert failures, page faults, null pointer dereferences, and queue corruption errors all coming from scheduler itself. Some of the crashes: -> kernel BUG at kernel/sched/rt.c:1616! BUG_ON(idx >= MAX_RT_PRIO) Call Trace: ? __die_body+0x1a/0x60 ? die+0x2a/0x50 ? do_trap+0x85/0x100 ? pick_next_task_rt+0x6e/0x1d0 ? do_error_trap+0x64/0xa0 ? pick_next_task_rt+0x6e/0x1d0 ? exc_invalid_op+0x4c/0x60 ? pick_next_task_rt+0x6e/0x1d0 ? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x12/0x20 ? pick_next_task_rt+0x6e/0x1d0 __schedule+0x5cb/0x790 ? update_ts_time_stats+0x55/0x70 schedule_idle+0x1e/0x40 do_idle+0x15e/0x200 cpu_startup_entry+0x19/0x20 start_secondary+0x117/0x160 secondary_startup_64_no_verify+0xb0/0xbb -> BUG: kernel NULL pointer dereference, address: 00000000000000c0 Call Trace: ? __die_body+0x1a/0x60 ? no_context+0x183/0x350 ? __warn+0x8a/0xe0 ? exc_page_fault+0x3d6/0x520 ? asm_exc_page_fault+0x1e/0x30 ? pick_next_task_rt+0xb5/0x1d0 ? pick_next_task_rt+0x8c/0x1d0 __schedule+0x583/0x7e0 ? update_ts_time_stats+0x55/0x70 schedule_idle+0x1e/0x40 do_idle+0x15e/0x200 cpu_startup_entry+0x19/0x20 start_secondary+0x117/0x160 secondary_startup_64_no_verify+0xb0/0xbb -> BUG: unable to handle page fault for address: ffff9464daea5900 kernel BUG at kernel/sched/rt.c:1861! BUG_ON(rq->cpu != task_cpu(p)) -> kernel BUG at kernel/sched/rt.c:1055! BUG_ON(!rq->nr_running) Call Trace: ? __die_body+0x1a/0x60 ? die+0x2a/0x50 ? do_trap+0x85/0x100 ? dequeue_top_rt_rq+0xa2/0xb0 ? do_error_trap+0x64/0xa0 ? dequeue_top_rt_rq+0xa2/0xb0 ? exc_invalid_op+0x4c/0x60 ? dequeue_top_rt_rq+0xa2/0xb0 ? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x12/0x20 ? dequeue_top_rt_rq+0xa2/0xb0 dequeue_rt_entity+0x1f/0x70 dequeue_task_rt+0x2d/0x70 __schedule+0x1a8/0x7e0 ? blk_finish_plug+0x25/0x40 schedule+0x3c/0xb0 futex_wait_queue_me+0xb6/0x120 futex_wait+0xd9/0x240 do_futex+0x344/0xa90 ? get_mm_exe_file+0x30/0x60 ? audit_exe_compare+0x58/0x70 ? audit_filter_rules.constprop.26+0x65e/0x1220 __x64_sys_futex+0x148/0x1f0 do_syscall_64+0x30/0x80 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x62/0xc7 -> BUG: unable to handle page fault for address: ffff8cf3608bc2c0 Call Trace: ? __die_body+0x1a/0x60 ? no_context+0x183/0x350 ? spurious_kernel_fault+0x171/0x1c0 ? exc_page_fault+0x3b6/0x520 ? plist_check_list+0x15/0x40 ? plist_check_list+0x2e/0x40 ? asm_exc_page_fault+0x1e/0x30 ? _cond_resched+0x15/0x30 ? futex_wait_queue_me+0xc8/0x120 ? futex_wait+0xd9/0x240 ? try_to_wake_up+0x1b8/0x490 ? futex_wake+0x78/0x160 ? do_futex+0xcd/0xa90 ? plist_check_list+0x15/0x40 ? plist_check_list+0x2e/0x40 ? plist_del+0x6a/0xd0 ? plist_check_list+0x15/0x40 ? plist_check_list+0x2e/0x40 ? dequeue_pushable_task+0x20/0x70 ? __schedule+0x382/0x7e0 ? asm_sysvec_reschedule_i ---truncated---CVE Informations
Related Weaknesses
| Weakness Name | Source | |
|---|---|---|
| Concurrent Execution using Shared Resource with Improper Synchronization ('Race Condition') The product contains a concurrent code sequence that requires temporary, exclusive access to a shared resource, but a timing window exists in which the shared resource can be modified by another code sequence operating concurrently. |
Metrics
| Metrics | Score | Severity | CVSS Vector | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| V3.1 | 7.8 | HIGH |
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/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. High There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server. Integrity Impact This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. High There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to 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. |
|
| V3.1 | 4.7 | MEDIUM |
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/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. High successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. 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 To (excluding) 6.15.4
