CVE-2021-47185 : Détail

CVE-2021-47185

4.4
/
Moyen
0.04%V3
Local
2024-04-10
18h56 +00:00
2024-12-19
07h37 +00:00
CVE.org
NVD
Notifications pour un CVE
Restez informé de toutes modifications pour un CVE spécifique.
Gestion des notifications

Descriptions du CVE

tty: tty_buffer: Fix the softlockup issue in flush_to_ldisc

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: tty: tty_buffer: Fix the softlockup issue in flush_to_ldisc When running ltp testcase(ltp/testcases/kernel/pty/pty04.c) with arm64, there is a soft lockup, which look like this one: Workqueue: events_unbound flush_to_ldisc Call trace: dump_backtrace+0x0/0x1ec show_stack+0x24/0x30 dump_stack+0xd0/0x128 panic+0x15c/0x374 watchdog_timer_fn+0x2b8/0x304 __run_hrtimer+0x88/0x2c0 __hrtimer_run_queues+0xa4/0x120 hrtimer_interrupt+0xfc/0x270 arch_timer_handler_phys+0x40/0x50 handle_percpu_devid_irq+0x94/0x220 __handle_domain_irq+0x88/0xf0 gic_handle_irq+0x84/0xfc el1_irq+0xc8/0x180 slip_unesc+0x80/0x214 [slip] tty_ldisc_receive_buf+0x64/0x80 tty_port_default_receive_buf+0x50/0x90 flush_to_ldisc+0xbc/0x110 process_one_work+0x1d4/0x4b0 worker_thread+0x180/0x430 kthread+0x11c/0x120 In the testcase pty04, The first process call the write syscall to send data to the pty master. At the same time, the workqueue will do the flush_to_ldisc to pop data in a loop until there is no more data left. When the sender and workqueue running in different core, the sender sends data fastly in full time which will result in workqueue doing work in loop for a long time and occuring softlockup in flush_to_ldisc with kernel configured without preempt. So I add need_resched check and cond_resched in the flush_to_ldisc loop to avoid it.

Informations du CVE

Faiblesses connexes

CWE-ID Nom de la faiblesse 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.

Métriques

Métriques Score Gravité CVSS Vecteur Source
V3.1 4.4 MEDIUM CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/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.

High

The attacker requires privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable component allowing access to component-wide settings and files.

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.

 134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0

EPSS

EPSS est un modèle de notation qui prédit la probabilité qu'une vulnérabilité soit exploitée.

Score EPSS

Le modèle EPSS produit un score de probabilité compris entre 0 et 1 (0 et 100 %). Plus la note est élevée, plus la probabilité qu'une vulnérabilité soit exploitée est grande.

Percentile EPSS

Le percentile est utilisé pour classer les CVE en fonction de leur score EPSS. Par exemple, une CVE dans le 95e percentile selon son score EPSS est plus susceptible d'être exploitée que 95 % des autres CVE. Ainsi, le percentile sert à comparer le score EPSS d'une CVE par rapport à d'autres CVE.
EPSS First.org

Products Mentioned

Configuraton 0

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version To (excluding) 4.4.293

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 4.5 To (excluding) 4.9.291

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 4.10 To (excluding) 4.14.256

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 4.15 To (excluding) 4.19.218

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 4.20 To (excluding) 5.4.162

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.5 To (excluding) 5.10.82

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.11 To (excluding) 5.15.5

Références