CVE-2021-46910
CVE Descriptions
ARM: 9063/1: mm: reduce maximum number of CPUs if DEBUG_KMAP_LOCAL is enabled
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ARM: 9063/1: mm: reduce maximum number of CPUs if DEBUG_KMAP_LOCAL is enabled The debugging code for kmap_local() doubles the number of per-CPU fixmap slots allocated for kmap_local(), in order to use half of them as guard regions. This causes the fixmap region to grow downwards beyond the start of its reserved window if the supported number of CPUs is large, and collide with the newly added virtual DT mapping right below it, which is obviously not good. One manifestation of this is EFI boot on a kernel built with NR_CPUS=32 and CONFIG_DEBUG_KMAP_LOCAL=y, which may pass the FDT in highmem, resulting in block entries below the fixmap region that the fixmap code misidentifies as fixmap table entries, and subsequently tries to dereference using a phys-to-virt translation that is only valid for lowmem. This results in a cryptic splat such as the one below. ftrace: allocating 45548 entries in 89 pages 8<--- cut here --- Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address fc6006f0 pgd = (ptrval) [fc6006f0] *pgd=80000040207003, *pmd=00000000 Internal error: Oops: a06 [#1] SMP ARM Modules linked in: CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper Not tainted 5.11.0+ #382 Hardware name: Generic DT based system PC is at cpu_ca15_set_pte_ext+0x24/0x30 LR is at __set_fixmap+0xe4/0x118 pc : [CVE Informations
Related Weaknesses
| Weakness Name | Source | |
|---|---|---|
| No informations. |
Metrics
| Metrics | Score | Severity | CVSS Vector | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| V3.1 | 5.5 | MEDIUM |
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
More informations
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 Score
EPSS Percentile
Products Mentioned
Configuraton 0
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.11.0 To (excluding) 5.11.16
- Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 5.11.1 (Open CPE detail)
- Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 5.11.2 (Open CPE detail)
- Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 5.11.3 (Open CPE detail)
- Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 5.11.4 (Open CPE detail)
- Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 5.11.5 (Open CPE detail)
- Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 5.11.6 (Open CPE detail)
- Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 5.11.7 (Open CPE detail)
- Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 5.11.8 (Open CPE detail)
- Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 5.11.9 (Open CPE detail)
- Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 5.11.10 (Open CPE detail)
- Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 5.11.11 (Open CPE detail)
- Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 5.11.12 (Open CPE detail)
- Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 5.11.13 (Open CPE detail)
- Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 5.11.14 (Open CPE detail)
- Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 5.11.15 (Open CPE detail)
