CVE-2025-40151
10h23 +00:00
Deskripsi CVE
LoongArch: BPF: No support of struct argument in trampoline programs
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: LoongArch: BPF: No support of struct argument in trampoline programs The current implementation does not support struct argument. This causes a oops when running bpf selftest: $ ./test_progs -a tracing_struct Oops[#1]: CPU -1 Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address 0000000000000018, era == 9000000085bef268, ra == 90000000844f3938 rcu: INFO: rcu_preempt detected stalls on CPUs/tasks: rcu: 1-...0: (19 ticks this GP) idle=1094/1/0x4000000000000000 softirq=1380/1382 fqs=801 rcu: (detected by 0, t=5252 jiffies, g=1197, q=52 ncpus=4) Sending NMI from CPU 0 to CPUs 1: rcu: rcu_preempt kthread starved for 2495 jiffies! g1197 f0x0 RCU_GP_DOING_FQS(6) ->state=0x0 ->cpu=2 rcu: Unless rcu_preempt kthread gets sufficient CPU time, OOM is now expected behavior. rcu: RCU grace-period kthread stack dump: task:rcu_preempt state:I stack:0 pid:15 tgid:15 ppid:2 task_flags:0x208040 flags:0x00000800 Stack : 9000000100423e80 0000000000000402 0000000000000010 90000001003b0680 9000000085d88000 0000000000000000 0000000000000040 9000000087159350 9000000085c2b9b0 0000000000000001 900000008704a000 0000000000000005 00000000ffff355b 00000000ffff355b 0000000000000000 0000000000000004 9000000085d90510 0000000000000000 0000000000000002 7b5d998f8281e86e 00000000ffff355c 7b5d998f8281e86e 000000000000003f 9000000087159350 900000008715bf98 0000000000000005 9000000087036000 900000008704a000 9000000100407c98 90000001003aff80 900000008715c4c0 9000000085c2b9b0 00000000ffff355b 9000000085c33d3c 00000000000000b4 0000000000000000 9000000007002150 00000000ffff355b 9000000084615480 0000000007000002 ... Call Trace: [<9000000085c2a868>] __schedule+0x410/0x1520 [<9000000085c2b9ac>] schedule+0x34/0x190 [<9000000085c33d38>] schedule_timeout+0x98/0x140 [<90000000845e9120>] rcu_gp_fqs_loop+0x5f8/0x868 [<90000000845ed538>] rcu_gp_kthread+0x260/0x2e0 [<900000008454e8a4>] kthread+0x144/0x238 [<9000000085c26b60>] ret_from_kernel_thread+0x28/0xc8 [<90000000844f20e4>] ret_from_kernel_thread_asm+0xc/0x88 rcu: Stack dump where RCU GP kthread last ran: Sending NMI from CPU 0 to CPUs 2: NMI backtrace for cpu 2 skipped: idling at idle_exit+0x0/0x4 Reject it for now.Informasi CVE
Metrik
| Metrik | Skor | Tingkat keparahan | CVSS Vektor | Sumber |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| V3.1 | 7.8 | HIGH |
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Informasi lebih lanjut
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. 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. |
