CVE-2022-49266
01h56 +00:00
CVE 描述
block: fix rq-qos breakage from skipping rq_qos_done_bio()
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: block: fix rq-qos breakage from skipping rq_qos_done_bio() a647a524a467 ("block: don't call rq_qos_ops->done_bio if the bio isn't tracked") made bio_endio() skip rq_qos_done_bio() if BIO_TRACKED is not set. While this fixed a potential oops, it also broke blk-iocost by skipping the done_bio callback for merged bios. Before, whether a bio goes through rq_qos_throttle() or rq_qos_merge(), rq_qos_done_bio() would be called on the bio on completion with BIO_TRACKED distinguishing the former from the latter. rq_qos_done_bio() is not called for bios which wenth through rq_qos_merge(). This royally confuses blk-iocost as the merged bios never finish and are considered perpetually in-flight. One reliably reproducible failure mode is an intermediate cgroup geting stuck active preventing its children from being activated due to the leaf-only rule, leading to loss of control. The following is from resctl-bench protection scenario which emulates isolating a web server like workload from a memory bomb run on an iocost configuration which should yield a reasonable level of protection. # cat /sys/block/nvme2n1/device/model Samsung SSD 970 PRO 512GB # cat /sys/fs/cgroup/io.cost.model 259:0 ctrl=user model=linear rbps=834913556 rseqiops=93622 rrandiops=102913 wbps=618985353 wseqiops=72325 wrandiops=71025 # cat /sys/fs/cgroup/io.cost.qos 259:0 enable=1 ctrl=user rpct=95.00 rlat=18776 wpct=95.00 wlat=8897 min=60.00 max=100.00 # resctl-bench -m 29.6G -r out.json run protection::scenario=mem-hog,loops=1 ... Memory Hog Summary ================== IO Latency: R p50=242u:336u/2.5m p90=794u:1.4m/7.5m p99=2.7m:8.0m/62.5m max=8.0m:36.4m/350m W p50=221u:323u/1.5m p90=709u:1.2m/5.5m p99=1.5m:2.5m/9.5m max=6.9m:35.9m/350m Isolation and Request Latency Impact Distributions: min p01 p05 p10 p25 p50 p75 p90 p95 p99 max mean stdev isol% 15.90 15.90 15.90 40.05 57.24 59.07 60.01 74.63 74.63 90.35 90.35 58.12 15.82 lat-imp% 0 0 0 0 0 4.55 14.68 15.54 233.5 548.1 548.1 53.88 143.6 Result: isol=58.12:15.82% lat_imp=53.88%:143.6 work_csv=100.0% missing=3.96% The isolation result of 58.12% is close to what this device would show without any IO control. Fix it by introducing a new flag BIO_QOS_MERGED to mark merged bios and calling rq_qos_done_bio() on them too. For consistency and clarity, rename BIO_TRACKED to BIO_QOS_THROTTLED. The flag checks are moved into rq_qos_done_bio() so that it's next to the code paths that set the flags. With the patch applied, the above same benchmark shows: # resctl-bench -m 29.6G -r out.json run protection::scenario=mem-hog,loops=1 ... Memory Hog Summary ================== IO Latency: R p50=123u:84.4u/985u p90=322u:256u/2.5m p99=1.6m:1.4m/9.5m max=11.1m:36.0m/350m W p50=429u:274u/995u p90=1.7m:1.3m/4.5m p99=3.4m:2.7m/11.5m max=7.9m:5.9m/26.5m Isolation and Request Latency Impact Distributions: min p01 p05 p10 p25 p50 p75 p90 p95 p99 max mean stdev isol% 84.91 84.91 89.51 90.73 92.31 94.49 96.36 98.04 98.71 100.0 100.0 94.42 2.81 lat-imp% 0 0 0 0 0 2.81 5.73 11.11 13.92 17.53 22.61 4.10 4.68 Result: isol=94.42:2.81% lat_imp=4.10%:4.68 work_csv=58.34% missing=0%CVE 信息
相关弱点
| 弱点名称 | 来源 | |
|---|---|---|
| 暂无信息。 |
指标
| 指标 | 评分 | 严重程度 | CVSS 向量 | 来源 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| V3.1 | 5.5 | MEDIUM |
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
更多信息
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. 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 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. |
nvd@nist.gov |
EPSS
EPSS 评分
EPSS 百分位
相关产品
配置 0
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 从（含） 5.10.241 至（不含） 5.11
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 从（含） 5.14.11 至（不含） 5.15
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 从（含） 5.15.1 至（不含） 5.15.54
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 从（含） 5.16 至（不含） 5.16.19
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 从（含） 5.17 至（不含） 5.17.2
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 5.15
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 5.15
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 5.15
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 5.15
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 5.15
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 5.15
