CVE-2025-71104
CVE Descriptions
KVM: x86: Fix VM hard lockup after prolonged inactivity with periodic HV timer
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: KVM: x86: Fix VM hard lockup after prolonged inactivity with periodic HV timer When advancing the target expiration for the guest's APIC timer in periodic mode, set the expiration to "now" if the target expiration is in the past (similar to what is done in update_target_expiration()). Blindly adding the period to the previous target expiration can result in KVM generating a practically unbounded number of hrtimer IRQs due to programming an expired timer over and over. In extreme scenarios, e.g. if userspace pauses/suspends a VM for an extended duration, this can even cause hard lockups in the host. Currently, the bug only affects Intel CPUs when using the hypervisor timer (HV timer), a.k.a. the VMX preemption timer. Unlike the software timer, a.k.a. hrtimer, which KVM keeps running even on exits to userspace, the HV timer only runs while the guest is active. As a result, if the vCPU does not run for an extended duration, there will be a huge gap between the target expiration and the current time the vCPU resumes running. Because the target expiration is incremented by only one period on each timer expiration, this leads to a series of timer expirations occurring rapidly after the vCPU/VM resumes. More critically, when the vCPU first triggers a periodic HV timer expiration after resuming, advancing the expiration by only one period will result in a target expiration in the past. As a result, the delta may be calculated as a negative value. When the delta is converted into an absolute value (tscdeadline is an unsigned u64), the resulting value can overflow what the HV timer is capable of programming. I.e. the large value will exceed the VMX Preemption Timer's maximum bit width of cpu_preemption_timer_multi + 32, and thus cause KVM to switch from the HV timer to the software timer (hrtimers). After switching to the software timer, periodic timer expiration callbacks may be executed consecutively within a single clock interrupt handler, because hrtimers honors KVM's request for an expiration in the past and immediately re-invokes KVM's callback after reprogramming. And because the interrupt handler runs with IRQs disabled, restarting KVM's hrtimer over and over until the target expiration is advanced to "now" can result in a hard lockup. E.g. the following hard lockup was triggered in the host when running a Windows VM (only relevant because it used the APIC timer in periodic mode) after resuming the VM from a long suspend (in the host). NMI watchdog: Watchdog detected hard LOCKUP on cpu 45 ... RIP: 0010:advance_periodic_target_expiration+0x4d/0x80 [kvm] ... RSP: 0018:ff4f88f5d98d8ef0 EFLAGS: 00000046 RAX: fff0103f91be678e RBX: fff0103f91be678e RCX: 00843a7d9e127bcc RDX: 0000000000000002 RSI: 0052ca4003697505 RDI: ff440d5bfbdbd500 RBP: ff440d5956f99200 R08: ff2ff2a42deb6a84 R09: 000000000002a6c0 R10: 0122d794016332b3 R11: 0000000000000000 R12: ff440db1af39cfc0 R13: ff440db1af39cfc0 R14: ffffffffc0d4a560 R15: ff440db1af39d0f8 FS: 00007f04a6ffd700(0000) GS:ff440db1af380000(0000) knlGS:000000e38a3b8000 CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 CR2: 000000d5651feff8 CR3: 000000684e038002 CR4: 0000000000773ee0 PKRU: 55555554 Call Trace:CVE Informations
Related Weaknesses
| Weakness Name | Source | |
|---|---|---|
| Improper Locking The product does not properly acquire or release a lock on a resource, leading to unexpected resource state changes and behaviors. |
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) 4.14.45 To (excluding) 4.15
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 4.16.13 To (excluding) 4.17
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 4.17.1 To (excluding) 5.10.248
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.11 To (excluding) 5.15.198
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.16 To (excluding) 6.1.160
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.2 To (excluding) 6.6.120
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.7 To (excluding) 6.12.64
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.13 To (excluding) 6.18.3
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 4.17
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.19
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.19
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.19
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.19
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.19
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.19
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.19
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.19
