CVE Descriptions
rcu: Protect ->defer_qs_iw_pending from data race
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: rcu: Protect ->defer_qs_iw_pending from data race On kernels built with CONFIG_IRQ_WORK=y, when rcu_read_unlock() is invoked within an interrupts-disabled region of code [1], it will invoke rcu_read_unlock_special(), which uses an irq-work handler to force the system to notice when the RCU read-side critical section actually ends. That end won't happen until interrupts are enabled at the soonest. In some kernels, such as those booted with rcutree.use_softirq=y, the irq-work handler is used unconditionally. The per-CPU rcu_data structure's ->defer_qs_iw_pending field is updated by the irq-work handler and is both read and updated by rcu_read_unlock_special(). This resulted in the following KCSAN splat: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ BUG: KCSAN: data-race in rcu_preempt_deferred_qs_handler / rcu_read_unlock_special read to 0xffff96b95f42d8d8 of 1 bytes by task 90 on cpu 8: rcu_read_unlock_special+0x175/0x260 __rcu_read_unlock+0x92/0xa0 rt_spin_unlock+0x9b/0xc0 __local_bh_enable+0x10d/0x170 __local_bh_enable_ip+0xfb/0x150 rcu_do_batch+0x595/0xc40 rcu_cpu_kthread+0x4e9/0x830 smpboot_thread_fn+0x24d/0x3b0 kthread+0x3bd/0x410 ret_from_fork+0x35/0x40 ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30 write to 0xffff96b95f42d8d8 of 1 bytes by task 88 on cpu 8: rcu_preempt_deferred_qs_handler+0x1e/0x30 irq_work_single+0xaf/0x160 run_irq_workd+0x91/0xc0 smpboot_thread_fn+0x24d/0x3b0 kthread+0x3bd/0x410 ret_from_fork+0x35/0x40 ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30 no locks held by irq_work/8/88. irq event stamp: 200272 hardirqs last enabled at (200272): [CVE Informations
Related Weaknesses
| Weakness Name | Source | |
|---|---|---|
| No informations. |
Metrics
| Metrics | Score | Severity | CVSS Vector | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| V3.1 | 7 | HIGH |
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/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. 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. 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. |
nvd@nist.gov |
EPSS
EPSS Score
EPSS Percentile
Products Mentioned
Configuraton 0
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.3 To (excluding) 5.4.297
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.5 To (excluding) 5.10.241
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.11 To (excluding) 5.15.190
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.16 To (excluding) 6.1.149
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.2 To (excluding) 6.6.103
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.7 To (excluding) 6.12.43
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.13 To (excluding) 6.15.11
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.16 To (excluding) 6.16.2
Configuraton 0
Debian>>Debian_linux >> Version 11.0
References
Tags : Mailing List, Third Party Advisory
Tags : Mailing List, Third Party Advisory
