Total
443 CVE
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v2 | CVSS v3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2024-42250 | 1 Linux | 1 Linux Kernel | 2024-08-08 | N/A | 5.5 MEDIUM |
| In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: cachefiles: add missing lock protection when polling Add missing lock protection in poll routine when iterating xarray, otherwise: Even with RCU read lock held, only the slot of the radix tree is ensured to be pinned there, while the data structure (e.g. struct cachefiles_req) stored in the slot has no such guarantee. The poll routine will iterate the radix tree and dereference cachefiles_req accordingly. Thus RCU read lock is not adequate in this case and spinlock is needed here. | |||||
| CVE-2024-42239 | 1 Linux | 1 Linux Kernel | 2024-08-08 | N/A | 5.5 MEDIUM |
| In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: bpf: Fail bpf_timer_cancel when callback is being cancelled Given a schedule: timer1 cb timer2 cb bpf_timer_cancel(timer2); bpf_timer_cancel(timer1); Both bpf_timer_cancel calls would wait for the other callback to finish executing, introducing a lockup. Add an atomic_t count named 'cancelling' in bpf_hrtimer. This keeps track of all in-flight cancellation requests for a given BPF timer. Whenever cancelling a BPF timer, we must check if we have outstanding cancellation requests, and if so, we must fail the operation with an error (-EDEADLK) since cancellation is synchronous and waits for the callback to finish executing. This implies that we can enter a deadlock situation involving two or more timer callbacks executing in parallel and attempting to cancel one another. Note that we avoid incrementing the cancelling counter for the target timer (the one being cancelled) if bpf_timer_cancel is not invoked from a callback, to avoid spurious errors. The whole point of detecting cur->cancelling and returning -EDEADLK is to not enter a busy wait loop (which may or may not lead to a lockup). This does not apply in case the caller is in a non-callback context, the other side can continue to cancel as it sees fit without running into errors. Background on prior attempts: Earlier versions of this patch used a bool 'cancelling' bit and used the following pattern under timer->lock to publish cancellation status. lock(t->lock); t->cancelling = true; mb(); if (cur->cancelling) return -EDEADLK; unlock(t->lock); hrtimer_cancel(t->timer); t->cancelling = false; The store outside the critical section could overwrite a parallel requests t->cancelling assignment to true, to ensure the parallely executing callback observes its cancellation status. It would be necessary to clear this cancelling bit once hrtimer_cancel is done, but lack of serialization introduced races. Another option was explored where bpf_timer_start would clear the bit when (re)starting the timer under timer->lock. This would ensure serialized access to the cancelling bit, but may allow it to be cleared before in-flight hrtimer_cancel has finished executing, such that lockups can occur again. Thus, we choose an atomic counter to keep track of all outstanding cancellation requests and use it to prevent lockups in case callbacks attempt to cancel each other while executing in parallel. | |||||
| CVE-2024-42245 | 1 Linux | 1 Linux Kernel | 2024-08-08 | N/A | 5.5 MEDIUM |
| In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: Revert "sched/fair: Make sure to try to detach at least one movable task" This reverts commit b0defa7ae03ecf91b8bfd10ede430cff12fcbd06. b0defa7ae03ec changed the load balancing logic to ignore env.max_loop if all tasks examined to that point were pinned. The goal of the patch was to make it more likely to be able to detach a task buried in a long list of pinned tasks. However, this has the unfortunate side effect of creating an O(n) iteration in detach_tasks(), as we now must fully iterate every task on a cpu if all or most are pinned. Since this load balance code is done with rq lock held, and often in softirq context, it is very easy to trigger hard lockups. We observed such hard lockups with a user who affined O(10k) threads to a single cpu. When I discussed this with Vincent he initially suggested that we keep the limit on the number of tasks to detach, but increase the number of tasks we can search. However, after some back and forth on the mailing list, he recommended we instead revert the original patch, as it seems likely no one was actually getting hit by the original issue. | |||||