CVE Descriptions

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: clocksource/drivers/sh_tmu: Always leave device running after probe The TMU device can be used as both a clocksource and a clockevent provider. The driver tries to be smart and power itself on and off, as well as enabling and disabling its clock when it's not in operation. This behavior is slightly altered if the TMU is used as an early platform device in which case the device is left powered on after probe, but the clock is still enabled and disabled at runtime. This has worked for a long time, but recent improvements in PREEMPT_RT and PROVE_LOCKING have highlighted an issue. As the TMU registers itself as a clockevent provider, clockevents_register_device(), it needs to use raw spinlocks internally as this is the context of which the clockevent framework interacts with the TMU driver. However in the context of holding a raw spinlock the TMU driver can't really manage its power state or clock with calls to pm_runtime_*() and clk_*() as these calls end up in other platform drivers using regular spinlocks to control power and clocks. This mix of spinlock contexts trips a lockdep warning. ============================= [ BUG: Invalid wait context ] 6.18.0-arm64-renesas-09926-gee959e7c5e34 #1 Not tainted ----------------------------- swapper/0/0 is trying to lock: ffff000008c9e180 (&dev->power.lock){-...}-{3:3}, at: __pm_runtime_resume+0x38/0x88 other info that might help us debug this: context-{5:5} 1 lock held by swapper/0/0: ccree e6601000.crypto: ARM CryptoCell 630P Driver: HW version 0xAF400001/0xDCC63000, Driver version 5.0 #0: ffff8000817ec298 ccree e6601000.crypto: ARM ccree device initialized (tick_broadcast_lock){-...}-{2:2}, at: __tick_broadcast_oneshot_control+0xa4/0x3a8 stack backtrace: CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 6.18.0-arm64-renesas-09926-gee959e7c5e34 #1 PREEMPT Hardware name: Renesas Salvator-X 2nd version board based on r8a77965 (DT) Call trace: show_stack+0x14/0x1c (C) dump_stack_lvl+0x6c/0x90 dump_stack+0x14/0x1c __lock_acquire+0x904/0x1584 lock_acquire+0x220/0x34c _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x58/0x80 __pm_runtime_resume+0x38/0x88 sh_tmu_clock_event_set_oneshot+0x84/0xd4 clockevents_switch_state+0xfc/0x13c tick_broadcast_set_event+0x30/0xa4 __tick_broadcast_oneshot_control+0x1e0/0x3a8 tick_broadcast_oneshot_control+0x30/0x40 cpuidle_enter_state+0x40c/0x680 cpuidle_enter+0x30/0x40 do_idle+0x1f4/0x280 cpu_startup_entry+0x34/0x40 kernel_init+0x0/0x130 do_one_initcall+0x0/0x230 __primary_switched+0x88/0x90 For non-PREEMPT_RT builds this is not really an issue, but for PREEMPT_RT builds where normal spinlocks can sleep this might be an issue. Be cautious and always leave the power and clock running after probe.

CVE Informations

Related Weaknesses

CWE-ID	Weakness Name	Source
CWE Other	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 Metrics The 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 Metrics The 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 Metrics The 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 Metrics The 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 Metrics These 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 is a scoring model that predicts the likelihood of a vulnerability being exploited.

EPSS Score

The EPSS model produces a probability score between 0 and 1 (0 and 100%). The higher the score, the greater the probability that a vulnerability will be exploited.

EPSS Percentile

The percentile is used to rank CVE according to their EPSS score. For example, a CVE in the 95th percentile according to its EPSS score is more likely to be exploited than 95% of other CVE. Thus, the percentile is used to compare the EPSS score of a CVE with that of other CVE.

EPSS First.org