CVE の説明

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: iommu/amd: Wait for completion instead of returning early in iommu_completion_wait() need_sync is a per-IOMMU flag shared by all domains and devices behind that IOMMU. It is set whenever a command is queued with sync == true and cleared when a completion-wait (CWAIT) command is queued. However, a cleared need_sync only means that a covering CWAIT has been queued, not that all previously queued commands have actually completed in hardware. iommu_completion_wait() read need_sync locklessly and returned early when it was false. This breaks the "block until all previously queued commands have completed" contract in a multi-CPU scenario: CPU2: queue inv-B => need_sync = true CPU1: queue CWAIT(N); need_sync = false; then wait_on_sem(N) CPU2: read need_sync == false => return 0 (no wait!) CPU2 returns without waiting for any sequence number even though its inv-B may not have completed yet (CWAIT(N), queued after inv-B, has not been signaled). CPU2 then proceeds to, for example, free page-table pages while the IOMMU can still walk stale translations, opening a use-after-free window. This is a logical race in the meaning of the flag, not a memory-visibility issue, so barriers alone do not help. Fix it without losing the optimization of avoiding redundant CWAIT commands: take iommu->lock before testing need_sync, and when it is false do not return early but wait for the last allocated sequence number (cmd_sem_val). Since need_sync == false implies no sync command was queued after the last CWAIT, that CWAIT is FIFO-ordered after every not-yet-completed command, so waiting for its sequence number guarantees all prior commands (possibly queued by another CPU) have completed. The common path with pending work is unchanged and no extra hardware command is issued.

CVE の情報

関連する弱点

CWE-ID	弱点名	出典
CWE-362	Concurrent Execution using Shared Resource with Improper Synchronization The product contains a concurrent code sequence that requires temporary, exclusive access to a shared resource, but a timing window exists in which the shared resource can be modified by another code sequence operating concurrently.

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	8.8	HIGH	CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H 詳細情報 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. Changed An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities. 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