CVE-2024-53169
CVE Descriptions
nvme-fabrics: fix kernel crash while shutting down controller
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: nvme-fabrics: fix kernel crash while shutting down controller The nvme keep-alive operation, which executes at a periodic interval, could potentially sneak in while shutting down a fabric controller. This may lead to a race between the fabric controller admin queue destroy code path (invoked while shutting down controller) and hw/hctx queue dispatcher called from the nvme keep-alive async request queuing operation. This race could lead to the kernel crash shown below: Call Trace: autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0xbc (unreliable) __blk_mq_sched_dispatch_requests+0x114/0x24c blk_mq_sched_dispatch_requests+0x44/0x84 blk_mq_run_hw_queue+0x140/0x220 nvme_keep_alive_work+0xc8/0x19c [nvme_core] process_one_work+0x200/0x4e0 worker_thread+0x340/0x504 kthread+0x138/0x140 start_kernel_thread+0x14/0x18 While shutting down fabric controller, if nvme keep-alive request sneaks in then it would be flushed off. The nvme_keep_alive_end_io function is then invoked to handle the end of the keep-alive operation which decrements the admin->q_usage_counter and assuming this is the last/only request in the admin queue then the admin->q_usage_counter becomes zero. If that happens then blk-mq destroy queue operation (blk_mq_destroy_ queue()) which could be potentially running simultaneously on another cpu (as this is the controller shutdown code path) would forward progress and deletes the admin queue. So, now from this point onward we are not supposed to access the admin queue resources. However the issue here's that the nvme keep-alive thread running hw/hctx queue dispatch operation hasn't yet finished its work and so it could still potentially access the admin queue resource while the admin queue had been already deleted and that causes the above crash. The above kernel crash is regression caused due to changes implemented in commit a54a93d0e359 ("nvme: move stopping keep-alive into nvme_uninit_ctrl()"). Ideally we should stop keep-alive before destroyin g the admin queue and freeing the admin tagset so that it wouldn't sneak in during the shutdown operation. However we removed the keep alive stop operation from the beginning of the controller shutdown code path in commit a54a93d0e359 ("nvme: move stopping keep-alive into nvme_uninit_ctrl()") and added it under nvme_uninit_ctrl() which executes very late in the shutdown code path after the admin queue is destroyed and its tagset is removed. So this change created the possibility of keep-alive sneaking in and interfering with the shutdown operation and causing observed kernel crash. To fix the observed crash, we decided to move nvme_stop_keep_alive() from nvme_uninit_ctrl() to nvme_remove_admin_tag_set(). This change would ensure that we don't forward progress and delete the admin queue until the keep- alive operation is finished (if it's in-flight) or cancelled and that would help contain the race condition explained above and hence avoid the crash. Moving nvme_stop_keep_alive() to nvme_remove_admin_tag_set() instead of adding nvme_stop_keep_alive() to the beginning of the controller shutdown code path in nvme_stop_ctrl(), as was the case earlier before commit a54a93d0e359 ("nvme: move stopping keep-alive into nvme_uninit_ctrl()"), would help save one callsite of nvme_stop_keep_alive().CVE Informations
Related Weaknesses
| Weakness Name | Source | |
|---|---|---|
| No informations. |
Metrics
| Metrics | Score | Severity | CVSS Vector | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| V3.1 | 9.8 | CRITICAL |
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/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. Network The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed “remotely exploitable” and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers). 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. None The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an 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 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 From (including) 6.10.7 To (excluding) 6.11
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.11.1 To (excluding) 6.11.11
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.12 To (excluding) 6.12.2
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.11
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.11
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.11
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.11
