CVE-2025-21634 : Detail

CVE-2025-21634

5.5
/
Medium
0.04%V3
Local
2025-01-19
10h17 +00:00
2025-01-20
06h29 +00:00
CVE.org
NVD
Notifications for a CVE
Stay informed of any changes for a specific CVE.
Notifications manage

CVE Descriptions

cgroup/cpuset: remove kernfs active break

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: cgroup/cpuset: remove kernfs active break A warning was found: WARNING: CPU: 10 PID: 3486953 at fs/kernfs/file.c:828 CPU: 10 PID: 3486953 Comm: rmdir Kdump: loaded Tainted: G RIP: 0010:kernfs_should_drain_open_files+0x1a1/0x1b0 RSP: 0018:ffff8881107ef9e0 EFLAGS: 00010202 RAX: 0000000080000002 RBX: ffff888154738c00 RCX: dffffc0000000000 RDX: 0000000000000007 RSI: 0000000000000004 RDI: ffff888154738c04 RBP: ffff888154738c04 R08: ffffffffaf27fa15 R09: ffffed102a8e7180 R10: ffff888154738c07 R11: 0000000000000000 R12: ffff888154738c08 R13: ffff888750f8c000 R14: ffff888750f8c0e8 R15: ffff888154738ca0 FS: 00007f84cd0be740(0000) GS:ffff8887ddc00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 CR2: 0000555f9fbe00c8 CR3: 0000000153eec001 CR4: 0000000000370ee0 DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000 DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400 Call Trace: kernfs_drain+0x15e/0x2f0 __kernfs_remove+0x165/0x300 kernfs_remove_by_name_ns+0x7b/0xc0 cgroup_rm_file+0x154/0x1c0 cgroup_addrm_files+0x1c2/0x1f0 css_clear_dir+0x77/0x110 kill_css+0x4c/0x1b0 cgroup_destroy_locked+0x194/0x380 cgroup_rmdir+0x2a/0x140 It can be explained by: rmdir echo 1 > cpuset.cpus kernfs_fop_write_iter // active=0 cgroup_rm_file kernfs_remove_by_name_ns kernfs_get_active // active=1 __kernfs_remove // active=0x80000002 kernfs_drain cpuset_write_resmask wait_event //waiting (active == 0x80000001) kernfs_break_active_protection // active = 0x80000001 // continue kernfs_unbreak_active_protection // active = 0x80000002 ... kernfs_should_drain_open_files // warning occurs kernfs_put_active This warning is caused by 'kernfs_break_active_protection' when it is writing to cpuset.cpus, and the cgroup is removed concurrently. The commit 3a5a6d0c2b03 ("cpuset: don't nest cgroup_mutex inside get_online_cpus()") made cpuset_hotplug_workfn asynchronous, This change involves calling flush_work(), which can create a multiple processes circular locking dependency that involve cgroup_mutex, potentially leading to a deadlock. To avoid deadlock. the commit 76bb5ab8f6e3 ("cpuset: break kernfs active protection in cpuset_write_resmask()") added 'kernfs_break_active_protection' in the cpuset_write_resmask. This could lead to this warning. After the commit 2125c0034c5d ("cgroup/cpuset: Make cpuset hotplug processing synchronous"), the cpuset_write_resmask no longer needs to wait the hotplug to finish, which means that concurrent hotplug and cpuset operations are no longer possible. Therefore, the deadlock doesn't exist anymore and it does not have to 'break active protection' now. To fix this warning, just remove kernfs_break_active_protection operation in the 'cpuset_write_resmask'.

CVE Informations

Related Weaknesses

CWE-ID Weakness Name Source
CWE-667 Improper Locking
The product does not properly acquire or release a lock on a resource, leading to unexpected resource state changes and behaviors.

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

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.

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 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.

 [email protected]

EPSS

EPSS is a scoring model that predicts the likelihood of a vulnerability being exploited.

EPSS Score

The EPSS model produces a probability score between 0 and 1 (0 and 100%). The higher the score, the greater the probability that a vulnerability will be exploited.

EPSS Percentile

The percentile is used to rank CVE according to their EPSS score. For example, a CVE in the 95th percentile according to its EPSS score is more likely to be exploited than 95% of other CVE. Thus, the percentile is used to compare the EPSS score of a CVE with that of other CVE.
EPSS First.org

Products Mentioned

Configuraton 0

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 3.16 To (excluding) 6.12.10

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.13

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.13

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.13

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.13

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.13

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.13

References