CVE-2026-31479:详情

CVE-2026-31479

7.8
/
高危
0.02%V4
2026-04-22
14h16 +00:00
Local
2026-10-19
19h17 +00:00
指定 CVE 通知
随时了解指定 CVE 的变更。
管理通知

CVE 描述

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: drm/xe: always keep track of remap prev/next During 3D workload, user is reporting hitting: [ 413.361679] WARNING: drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_vm.c:1217 at vm_bind_ioctl_ops_unwind+0x1e2/0x2e0 [xe], CPU#7: vkd3d_queue/9925 [ 413.361944] CPU: 7 UID: 1000 PID: 9925 Comm: vkd3d_queue Kdump: loaded Not tainted 7.0.0-070000rc3-generic #202603090038 PREEMPT(lazy) [ 413.361949] RIP: 0010:vm_bind_ioctl_ops_unwind+0x1e2/0x2e0 [xe] [ 413.362074] RSP: 0018:ffffd4c25c3df930 EFLAGS: 00010282 [ 413.362077] RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: ffff8f3ee817ed10 RCX: 0000000000000000 [ 413.362078] RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 0000000000000000 RDI: 0000000000000000 [ 413.362079] RBP: ffffd4c25c3df980 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000000000000 [ 413.362081] R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000000 R12: ffff8f41fbf99380 [ 413.362082] R13: ffff8f3ee817e968 R14: 00000000ffffffef R15: ffff8f43d00bd380 [ 413.362083] FS: 00000001040ff6c0(0000) GS:ffff8f4696d89000(0000) knlGS:00000000330b0000 [ 413.362085] CS: 0010 DS: 002b ES: 002b CR0: 0000000080050033 [ 413.362086] CR2: 00007ddfc4747000 CR3: 00000002e6262005 CR4: 0000000000f72ef0 [ 413.362088] PKRU: 55555554 [ 413.362089] Call Trace: [ 413.362092] [ 413.362096] xe_vm_bind_ioctl+0xa9a/0xc60 [xe] Which seems to hint that the vma we are re-inserting for the ops unwind is either invalid or overlapping with something already inserted in the vm. It shouldn't be invalid since this is a re-insertion, so must have worked before. Leaving the likely culprit as something already placed where we want to insert the vma. Following from that, for the case where we do something like a rebind in the middle of a vma, and one or both mapped ends are already compatible, we skip doing the rebind of those vma and set next/prev to NULL. As well as then adjust the original unmap va range, to avoid unmapping the ends. However, if we trigger the unwind path, we end up with three va, with the two ends never being removed and the original va range in the middle still being the shrunken size. If this occurs, one failure mode is when another unwind op needs to interact with that range, which can happen with a vector of binds. For example, if we need to re-insert something in place of the original va. In this case the va is still the shrunken version, so when removing it and then doing a re-insert it can overlap with the ends, which were never removed, triggering a warning like above, plus leaving the vm in a bad state. With that, we need two things here: 1) Stop nuking the prev/next tracking for the skip cases. Instead relying on checking for skip prev/next, where needed. That way on the unwind path, we now correctly remove both ends. 2) Undo the unmap va shrinkage, on the unwind path. With the two ends now removed the unmap va should expand back to the original size again, before re-insertion. v2: - Update the explanation in the commit message, based on an actual IGT of triggering this issue, rather than conjecture. - Also undo the unmap shrinkage, for the skip case. With the two ends now removed, the original unmap va range should expand back to the original range. v3: - Track the old start/range separately. vma_size/start() uses the va info directly. (cherry picked from commit aec6969f75afbf4e01fd5fb5850ed3e9c27043ac)

CVE 信息

相关弱点

CWE-ID 弱点名称 来源
CWE Other 暂无信息。
CWE-662 Improper Synchronization
The product utilizes multiple threads, processes, components, or systems to allow temporary access to a shared resource that can only be exclusive to one process at a time, but it does not properly synchronize these actions, which might cause simultaneous accesses of this resource by multiple threads or processes.

指标

指标 评分 严重程度 CVSS 向量 来源
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

EPSS

EPSS 是一种预测漏洞被利用可能性的评分模型。

EPSS 评分

EPSS 模型生成一个介于 0 到 1(即 0% 到 100%)之间的概率评分。评分越高,漏洞被利用的可能性越大。

EPSS 百分位

百分位用于根据 EPSS 评分对 CVE 进行排名。例如,EPSS 百分位为第 95 的 CVE,其被利用的可能性高于 95% 的其他 CVE。因此,百分位可用于比较不同 CVE 的 EPSS 评分。

相关产品

配置 0

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 从(含) 6.8.1 至(不含) 6.12.80

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 从(含) 6.13 至(不含) 6.18.21

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 从(含) 6.19 至(不含) 6.19.11

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.8

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 7.0

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 7.0

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 7.0

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 7.0

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 7.0

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 7.0

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 7.0

参考资料