ghsa-p672-9qr7-4cmf
Vulnerability from github
Published
2024-05-01 06:31
Modified
2024-11-05 18:31
Severity ?
6.3 (Medium) - CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:H
Details

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

interconnect: Don't access req_list while it's being manipulated

The icc_lock mutex was split into separate icc_lock and icc_bw_lock mutexes in [1] to avoid lockdep splats. However, this didn't adequately protect access to icc_node::req_list.

The icc_set_bw() function will eventually iterate over req_list while only holding icc_bw_lock, but req_list can be modified while only holding icc_lock. This causes races between icc_set_bw(), of_icc_get(), and icc_put().

Example A:

CPU0 CPU1 ---- ---- icc_set_bw(path_a) mutex_lock(&icc_bw_lock); icc_put(path_b) mutex_lock(&icc_lock); aggregate_requests() hlist_for_each_entry(r, ... hlist_del(...

Example B:

CPU0 CPU1 ---- ---- icc_set_bw(path_a) mutex_lock(&icc_bw_lock); path_b = of_icc_get() of_icc_get_by_index() mutex_lock(&icc_lock); path_find() path_init() aggregate_requests() hlist_for_each_entry(r, ... hlist_add_head(...

Fix this by ensuring icc_bw_lock is always held before manipulating icc_node::req_list. The additional places icc_bw_lock is held don't perform any memory allocations, so we should still be safe from the original lockdep splats that motivated the separate locks.

[1] commit af42269c3523 ("interconnect: Fix locking for runpm vs reclaim")

Show details on source website

To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2024-27005"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2024-05-01T06:15:18Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:\n\ninterconnect: Don\u0027t access req_list while it\u0027s being manipulated\n\nThe icc_lock mutex was split into separate icc_lock and icc_bw_lock\nmutexes in [1] to avoid lockdep splats. However, this didn\u0027t adequately\nprotect access to icc_node::req_list.\n\nThe icc_set_bw() function will eventually iterate over req_list while\nonly holding icc_bw_lock, but req_list can be modified while only\nholding icc_lock. This causes races between icc_set_bw(), of_icc_get(),\nand icc_put().\n\nExample A:\n\n  CPU0                               CPU1\n  ----                               ----\n  icc_set_bw(path_a)\n    mutex_lock(\u0026icc_bw_lock);\n                                     icc_put(path_b)\n                                       mutex_lock(\u0026icc_lock);\n    aggregate_requests()\n      hlist_for_each_entry(r, ...\n                                       hlist_del(...\n        \u003cr = invalid pointer\u003e\n\nExample B:\n\n  CPU0                               CPU1\n  ----                               ----\n  icc_set_bw(path_a)\n    mutex_lock(\u0026icc_bw_lock);\n                                     path_b = of_icc_get()\n                                       of_icc_get_by_index()\n                                         mutex_lock(\u0026icc_lock);\n                                         path_find()\n                                           path_init()\n    aggregate_requests()\n      hlist_for_each_entry(r, ...\n                                             hlist_add_head(...\n        \u003cr = invalid pointer\u003e\n\nFix this by ensuring icc_bw_lock is always held before manipulating\nicc_node::req_list. The additional places icc_bw_lock is held don\u0027t\nperform any memory allocations, so we should still be safe from the\noriginal lockdep splats that motivated the separate locks.\n\n[1] commit af42269c3523 (\"interconnect: Fix locking for runpm vs reclaim\")",
  "id": "GHSA-p672-9qr7-4cmf",
  "modified": "2024-11-05T18:31:58Z",
  "published": "2024-05-01T06:31:43Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-27005"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/4c65507121ea8e0b47fae6d2049c8688390d46b6"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/d0d04efa2e367921654b5106cc5c05e3757c2b42"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/de1bf25b6d771abdb52d43546cf57ad775fb68a1"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/4EZ6PJW7VOZ224TD7N4JZNU6KV32ZJ53"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/DAMSOZXJEPUOXW33WZYWCVAY7Z5S7OOY"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/GCBZZEC7L7KTWWAS2NLJK6SO3IZIL4WW"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}


Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.




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.
  • 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.