CVE-2025-38351
CVE Descriptions
KVM: x86/hyper-v: Skip non-canonical addresses during PV TLB flush
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: KVM: x86/hyper-v: Skip non-canonical addresses during PV TLB flush In KVM guests with Hyper-V hypercalls enabled, the hypercalls HVCALL_FLUSH_VIRTUAL_ADDRESS_LIST and HVCALL_FLUSH_VIRTUAL_ADDRESS_LIST_EX allow a guest to request invalidation of portions of a virtual TLB. For this, the hypercall parameter includes a list of GVAs that are supposed to be invalidated. However, when non-canonical GVAs are passed, there is currently no filtering in place and they are eventually passed to checked invocations of INVVPID on Intel / INVLPGA on AMD. While AMD's INVLPGA silently ignores non-canonical addresses (effectively a no-op), Intel's INVVPID explicitly signals VM-Fail and ultimately triggers the WARN_ONCE in invvpid_error(): invvpid failed: ext=0x0 vpid=1 gva=0xaaaaaaaaaaaaa000 WARNING: CPU: 6 PID: 326 at arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c:482 invvpid_error+0x91/0xa0 [kvm_intel] Modules linked in: kvm_intel kvm 9pnet_virtio irqbypass fuse CPU: 6 UID: 0 PID: 326 Comm: kvm-vm Not tainted 6.15.0 #14 PREEMPT(voluntary) RIP: 0010:invvpid_error+0x91/0xa0 [kvm_intel] Call Trace: vmx_flush_tlb_gva+0x320/0x490 [kvm_intel] kvm_hv_vcpu_flush_tlb+0x24f/0x4f0 [kvm] kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_run+0x3013/0x5810 [kvm] Hyper-V documents that invalid GVAs (those that are beyond a partition's GVA space) are to be ignored. While not completely clear whether this ruling also applies to non-canonical GVAs, it is likely fine to make that assumption, and manual testing on Azure confirms "real" Hyper-V interprets the specification in the same way. Skip non-canonical GVAs when processing the list of address to avoid tripping the INVVPID failure. Alternatively, KVM could filter out "bad" GVAs before inserting into the FIFO, but practically speaking the only downside of pushing validation to the final processing is that doing so is suboptimal for the guest, and no well-behaved guest will request TLB flushes for non-canonical addresses.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) 6.2 To (excluding) 6.6.103
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.7 To (excluding) 6.12.41
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.13 To (excluding) 6.15.7
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.16
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.16
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.16
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.16
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.16
