index_hw[hctx->type] > hctx->nr_ctx). This manifested as this UBSAN array index out of bounds error reported by Jakub: UBSAN: array-index-out-of-bounds in ../kernel/locking/qspinlock.c:130:9 index 13106 is out of range for type 'long unsigned int [128]' Call Trace: dump_stack+0xa4/0xe5 ubsan_epilogue+0x5/0x40 __ubsan_handle_out_of_bounds.cold.13+0x2a/0x34 queued_spin_lock_slowpath+0x476/0x480 do_raw_spin_lock+0x1c2/0x1d0 kyber_bio_merge+0x112/0x180 blk_mq_submit_bio+0x1f5/0x1100 submit_bio_noacct+0x7b0/0x870 submit_bio+0xc2/0x3a0 btrfs_map_bio+0x4f0/0x9d0 btrfs_submit_data_bio+0x24e/0x310 submit_one_bio+0x7f/0xb0 submit_extent_page+0xc4/0x440 __extent_writepage_io+0x2b8/0x5e0 __extent_writepage+0x28d/0x6e0 extent_write_cache_pages+0x4d7/0x7a0 extent_writepages+0xa2/0x110 do_writepages+0x8f/0x180 __writeback_single_inode+0x99/0x7f0 writeback_sb_inodes+0x34e/0x790 __writeback_inodes_wb+0x9e/0x120 wb_writeback+0x4d2/0x660 wb_workfn+0x64d/0xa10 process_one_work+0x53a/0xa80 worker_thread+0x69/0x5b0 kthread+0x20b/0x240 ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30 Only Kyber uses the hctx, so fix it by passing the request_queue to ->bio_merge() instead. BFQ and mq-deadline just use that, and Kyber can map the queues itself to avoid the mismatch.">

CVE-2021-46984 : Detail

CVE-2021-46984

7.8
/
High
0.04%V3
Local
2024-02-28
08h13 +00:00
2024-12-19
07h33 +00:00
CVE.org
NVD
Notifications for a CVE
Stay informed of any changes for a specific CVE.
Notifications manage

CVE Descriptions

kyber: fix out of bounds access when preempted

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: kyber: fix out of bounds access when preempted __blk_mq_sched_bio_merge() gets the ctx and hctx for the current CPU and passes the hctx to ->bio_merge(). kyber_bio_merge() then gets the ctx for the current CPU again and uses that to get the corresponding Kyber context in the passed hctx. However, the thread may be preempted between the two calls to blk_mq_get_ctx(), and the ctx returned the second time may no longer correspond to the passed hctx. This "works" accidentally most of the time, but it can cause us to read garbage if the second ctx came from an hctx with more ctx's than the first one (i.e., if ctx->index_hw[hctx->type] > hctx->nr_ctx). This manifested as this UBSAN array index out of bounds error reported by Jakub: UBSAN: array-index-out-of-bounds in ../kernel/locking/qspinlock.c:130:9 index 13106 is out of range for type 'long unsigned int [128]' Call Trace: dump_stack+0xa4/0xe5 ubsan_epilogue+0x5/0x40 __ubsan_handle_out_of_bounds.cold.13+0x2a/0x34 queued_spin_lock_slowpath+0x476/0x480 do_raw_spin_lock+0x1c2/0x1d0 kyber_bio_merge+0x112/0x180 blk_mq_submit_bio+0x1f5/0x1100 submit_bio_noacct+0x7b0/0x870 submit_bio+0xc2/0x3a0 btrfs_map_bio+0x4f0/0x9d0 btrfs_submit_data_bio+0x24e/0x310 submit_one_bio+0x7f/0xb0 submit_extent_page+0xc4/0x440 __extent_writepage_io+0x2b8/0x5e0 __extent_writepage+0x28d/0x6e0 extent_write_cache_pages+0x4d7/0x7a0 extent_writepages+0xa2/0x110 do_writepages+0x8f/0x180 __writeback_single_inode+0x99/0x7f0 writeback_sb_inodes+0x34e/0x790 __writeback_inodes_wb+0x9e/0x120 wb_writeback+0x4d2/0x660 wb_workfn+0x64d/0xa10 process_one_work+0x53a/0xa80 worker_thread+0x69/0x5b0 kthread+0x20b/0x240 ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30 Only Kyber uses the hctx, so fix it by passing the request_queue to ->bio_merge() instead. BFQ and mq-deadline just use that, and Kyber can map the queues itself to avoid the mismatch.

CVE Informations

Related Weaknesses

CWE-ID Weakness Name Source
CWE-129 Improper Validation of Array Index
The product uses untrusted input when calculating or using an array index, but the product does not validate or incorrectly validates the index to ensure the index references a valid position within the array.

Metrics

Metrics Score Severity CVSS Vector Source
V3.1 7.8 HIGH CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/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.

High

There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server.

Integrity Impact

This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information.

High

There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to 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) 4.18 To (excluding) 5.4.120

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.5 To (excluding) 5.10.38

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.11 To (excluding) 5.11.22

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.12 To (excluding) 5.12.5

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 5.13

References