CVE-2026-98507 : Detail

CVE-2026-98507

7.8
/
Tinggi
2026-10-18
16h17 +00:00
Local
2026-10-30
13h21 +00:00
Notifikasi untuk CVE tertentu
Tetap terinformasi tentang perubahan untuk CVE tertentu.
Kelola notifikasi

Deskripsi CVE

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm/rmap: fix missing barrier between anon_vma init and vma->anon_vma publish On arm64 server, we find that a task trying to grab the anon_vma lock triggers hungtask. INFO: task main:2354726 blocked for more than 120 seconds. Tainted: G E 5.10.0-0021.aarch64 #1 "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message. task:main state:D stack: 0 pid:2354726 ppid:2350673 flags:0x00000a01 Call trace: __switch_to+0x7c/0xbc __schedule+0x3b4/0x8a0 schedule+0x50/0xe0 rwsem_down_write_slowpath+0x3cc/0x6cc down_write+0x60/0x260 __anon_vma_prepare+0x6c/0x210 do_anonymous_page+0x258/0x660 handle_pte_fault+0x188/0x214 __handle_mm_fault+0x1b0/0x380 handle_mm_fault+0xf4/0x284 do_page_fault+0x19c/0x494 do_translation_fault+0xcc/0xf8 do_mem_abort+0x48/0xac el0_da+0x44/0x80 el0_sync_handler+0x88/0xb4 el0_sync+0x160/0x180 After analyzing the vmcore, we found the anon_vma->root->rwsem.count is -1. There is another anon_vma whose anon_vma->root->rwsem.count is 1, the anon_vma->root->rwsem.owner shows the lock is held, but the stack of the task shows the task doesn't hold the anon_vma lock. After adding more debugging info, we found __anon_vma_prepare() reuses anon_vma and triggers the UAF of anon_vma->root due to missing memory barrier, leading to locking and unlocking two different anon_vma->root, thus leading to an anon_vma will never be unlocked, and another anon_vma couldn't be locked anymore. This race requires two adjacent VMAs that are not merged but are anon_vma-compatible (e.g., they differ in VMA_ACCESS_FLAGS that can be changed by mprotect()). Two threads fault on each VMA concurrently, both calling __anon_vma_prepare() with only mmap_lock held for reading. THREAD A THREAD B __anon_vma_prepare __anon_vma_prepare find_mergeable_anon_vma() -> NULL anon_vma = anon_vma_alloc(); anon_vma->root = anon_vma; // the two stores may be reordered vma->anon_vma = anon_vma; // finds A's anon_vma anon_vma = find_mergeable_anon_vma(vma); anon_vma_lock_write(anon_vma); // may still see the old root down_write(&anon_vma->root->rwsem); anon_vma_unlock_write(anon_vma); // see the new root, never unlock old up_write(&anon_vma->root->rwsem); thread A triggers page fault and calls __anon_vma_prepare() to prepare anon_vma for the faulting vma. __anon_vma_prepare() allocates and initializes a new anon_vma, and then publishes it to the vma with a plain store. anon_vma_prepare() only requires the mmap_lock to be held for reading, so two threads can fault on adjacent VMAs at the same time. While thread A publishes a new anon_vma, thread B could find the anon_vma via find_mergeable_anon_vma() and then locks anon_vma->root->rwsem. The store to anon_vma->root in anon_vma_alloc() and the store to vma->anon_vma can be reordered. The anon_vma_lock_write() and spin_lock() only provide acquire semantics, which do not prevent prior stores from being reordered after them. The release semantics of the corresponding spin_unlock() and anon_vma_unlock_write() come too late, the store to vma->anon_vma is already published before they take effect. As a result, thread B can observe the following order: vma->anon_vma = anon_vma; anon_vma->root = anon_vma; The anon_vma slab is SLAB_TYPESAFE_BY_RCU, so a newly allocated anon_vma may reuse memory from a previously freed one. The constructor (anon_vma_ctor) does not reset anon_vma->root, and __put_anon_vma() doesn't clear it either, so the old root value persists until anon_vma_alloc() overwrites it. If that store isn't v ---truncated---

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

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.

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 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.

416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67

Referensi