CVE-2022-49782 : 詳細

CVE-2022-49782

5.5
/
中
0.09%V4
2025-05-01
14h09 +00:00
Local
2026-11-05
19h49 +00:00
特定のCVEの通知
特定のCVEの変更情報をいち早くお届けします。
通知を管理する

CVE の説明

perf: Improve missing SIGTRAP checking

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: perf: Improve missing SIGTRAP checking To catch missing SIGTRAP we employ a WARN in __perf_event_overflow(), which fires if pending_sigtrap was already set: returning to user space without consuming pending_sigtrap, and then having the event fire again would re-enter the kernel and trigger the WARN. This, however, seemed to miss the case where some events not associated with progress in the user space task can fire and the interrupt handler runs before the IRQ work meant to consume pending_sigtrap (and generate the SIGTRAP). syzbot gifted us this stack trace: | WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 3607 at kernel/events/core.c:9313 __perf_event_overflow | Modules linked in: | CPU: 0 PID: 3607 Comm: syz-executor100 Not tainted 6.1.0-rc2-syzkaller-00073-g88619e77b33d #0 | Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS Google 10/11/2022 | RIP: 0010:__perf_event_overflow+0x498/0x540 kernel/events/core.c:9313 | <...> | Call Trace: | | perf_swevent_hrtimer+0x34f/0x3c0 kernel/events/core.c:10729 | __run_hrtimer kernel/time/hrtimer.c:1685 [inline] | __hrtimer_run_queues+0x1c6/0xfb0 kernel/time/hrtimer.c:1749 | hrtimer_interrupt+0x31c/0x790 kernel/time/hrtimer.c:1811 | local_apic_timer_interrupt arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c:1096 [inline] | __sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x17c/0x640 arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c:1113 | sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x40/0xc0 arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c:1107 | asm_sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x16/0x20 arch/x86/include/asm/idtentry.h:649 | <...> | In this case, syzbot produced a program with event type PERF_TYPE_SOFTWARE and config PERF_COUNT_SW_CPU_CLOCK. The hrtimer manages to fire again before the IRQ work got a chance to run, all while never having returned to user space. Improve the WARN to check for real progress in user space: approximate this by storing a 32-bit hash of the current IP into pending_sigtrap, and if an event fires while pending_sigtrap still matches the previous IP, we assume no progress (false negatives are possible given we could return to user space and trigger again on the same IP).

CVE の情報

関連する弱点

CWE-ID 弱点名 出典
CWE-674 Uncontrolled Recursion
The product does not properly control the amount of recursion that takes place, consuming excessive resources, such as allocated memory or the program stack.

メトリクス

メトリクス スコア 深刻度 CVSS ベクター 出典
V3.1 5.5 MEDIUM CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/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.

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は脆弱性が悪用される可能性を予測するスコアリングモデルです。

EPSSスコア

EPSSモデルは0から1(0〜100%)の確率スコアを算出します。スコアが高いほど、脆弱性が悪用される可能性が高いことを示します。

EPSSパーセンタイル

パーセンタイルはCVEをEPSSスコアで順位付けするために使用されます。例えば、EPSSスコアで95パーセンタイルにあるCVEは、他の95%のCVEよりも悪用される可能性が高いことを意味します。パーセンタイルはCVEのEPSSスコアを他のCVEと比較するために使用されます。

関連製品

構成 0

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version ~から(含む) 5.15.77 ~まで(含まない) 5.15.80

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version ~から(含む) 6.0.7 ~まで(含まない) 6.0.10

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.1

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.1

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.1

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.1

参考資料