ghsa-c2cr-w322-fppq
Vulnerability from github
Published
2025-04-08 09:31
Modified
2025-11-03 21:33
Severity ?
VLAI Severity ?
Details
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
RDMA/hns: Fix soft lockup during bt pages loop
Driver runs a for-loop when allocating bt pages and mapping them with buffer pages. When a large buffer (e.g. MR over 100GB) is being allocated, it may require a considerable loop count. This will lead to soft lockup:
watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#27 stuck for 22s!
...
Call trace:
hem_list_alloc_mid_bt+0x124/0x394 [hns_roce_hw_v2]
hns_roce_hem_list_request+0xf8/0x160 [hns_roce_hw_v2]
hns_roce_mtr_create+0x2e4/0x360 [hns_roce_hw_v2]
alloc_mr_pbl+0xd4/0x17c [hns_roce_hw_v2]
hns_roce_reg_user_mr+0xf8/0x190 [hns_roce_hw_v2]
ib_uverbs_reg_mr+0x118/0x290
watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#35 stuck for 23s!
...
Call trace:
hns_roce_hem_list_find_mtt+0x7c/0xb0 [hns_roce_hw_v2]
mtr_map_bufs+0xc4/0x204 [hns_roce_hw_v2]
hns_roce_mtr_create+0x31c/0x3c4 [hns_roce_hw_v2]
alloc_mr_pbl+0xb0/0x160 [hns_roce_hw_v2]
hns_roce_reg_user_mr+0x108/0x1c0 [hns_roce_hw_v2]
ib_uverbs_reg_mr+0x120/0x2bc
Add a cond_resched() to fix soft lockup during these loops. In order not to affect the allocation performance of normal-size buffer, set the loop count of a 100GB MR as the threshold to call cond_resched().
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-22010"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-667"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-04-08T09:15:24Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:\n\nRDMA/hns: Fix soft lockup during bt pages loop\n\nDriver runs a for-loop when allocating bt pages and mapping them with\nbuffer pages. When a large buffer (e.g. MR over 100GB) is being allocated,\nit may require a considerable loop count. This will lead to soft lockup:\n\n watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#27 stuck for 22s!\n ...\n Call trace:\n hem_list_alloc_mid_bt+0x124/0x394 [hns_roce_hw_v2]\n hns_roce_hem_list_request+0xf8/0x160 [hns_roce_hw_v2]\n hns_roce_mtr_create+0x2e4/0x360 [hns_roce_hw_v2]\n alloc_mr_pbl+0xd4/0x17c [hns_roce_hw_v2]\n hns_roce_reg_user_mr+0xf8/0x190 [hns_roce_hw_v2]\n ib_uverbs_reg_mr+0x118/0x290\n\n watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#35 stuck for 23s!\n ...\n Call trace:\n hns_roce_hem_list_find_mtt+0x7c/0xb0 [hns_roce_hw_v2]\n mtr_map_bufs+0xc4/0x204 [hns_roce_hw_v2]\n hns_roce_mtr_create+0x31c/0x3c4 [hns_roce_hw_v2]\n alloc_mr_pbl+0xb0/0x160 [hns_roce_hw_v2]\n hns_roce_reg_user_mr+0x108/0x1c0 [hns_roce_hw_v2]\n ib_uverbs_reg_mr+0x120/0x2bc\n\nAdd a cond_resched() to fix soft lockup during these loops. In order not\nto affect the allocation performance of normal-size buffer, set the loop\ncount of a 100GB MR as the threshold to call cond_resched().",
"id": "GHSA-c2cr-w322-fppq",
"modified": "2025-11-03T21:33:30Z",
"published": "2025-04-08T09:31:12Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-22010"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/13a52f6c9ff99f7d88f81da535cb4e85eade662b"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/25655580136de59ec89f09089dd28008ea440fc9"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/4104b0023ff66b5df900d23dbf38310893deca79"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/461eb4ddede266df8f181f578732bb01742c3fd6"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/975355faba56c0751292ed15a90c3e2c7dc0aad6"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/9ab20fec7a1ce3057ad86afd27bfd08420b7cd11"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/efe544462fc0b499725364f90bd0f8bbf16f861a"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2025/05/msg00030.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2025/05/msg00045.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
Loading…
Loading…
Sightings
| Author | Source | Type | Date |
|---|
Nomenclature
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or seen somewhere by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability is confirmed from an analyst perspective.
- Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
- Exploited: This vulnerability was exploited and seen by the user reporting the sighting.
- Patched: This vulnerability was successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.
- Not exploited: This vulnerability was not exploited or seen by the user reporting the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expresses doubt about the veracity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: This vulnerability was not successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.
Loading…
Loading…