CVE-2022-48845 : Détail

CVE-2022-48845

5.5
/
Moyen
0.04%V3
Local
2024-07-16
12h25 +00:00
2024-12-19
08h08 +00:00
CVE.org
NVD
Notifications pour un CVE
Restez informé de toutes modifications pour un CVE spécifique.
Gestion des notifications

Descriptions du CVE

MIPS: smp: fill in sibling and core maps earlier

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: MIPS: smp: fill in sibling and core maps earlier After enabling CONFIG_SCHED_CORE (landed during 5.14 cycle), 2-core 2-thread-per-core interAptiv (CPS-driven) started emitting the following: [ 0.025698] CPU1 revision is: 0001a120 (MIPS interAptiv (multi)) [ 0.048183] ------------[ cut here ]------------ [ 0.048187] WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 0 at kernel/sched/core.c:6025 sched_core_cpu_starting+0x198/0x240 [ 0.048220] Modules linked in: [ 0.048233] CPU: 1 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/1 Not tainted 5.17.0-rc3+ #35 b7b319f24073fd9a3c2aa7ad15fb7993eec0b26f [ 0.048247] Stack : 817f0000 00000004 327804c8 810eb050 00000000 00000004 00000000 c314fdd1 [ 0.048278] 830cbd64 819c0000 81800000 817f0000 83070bf4 00000001 830cbd08 00000000 [ 0.048307] 00000000 00000000 815fcbc4 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 [ 0.048334] 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 817f0000 00000000 00000000 817f6f34 [ 0.048361] 817f0000 818a3c00 817f0000 00000004 00000000 00000000 4dc33260 0018c933 [ 0.048389] ... [ 0.048396] Call Trace: [ 0.048399] [<8105a7bc>] show_stack+0x3c/0x140 [ 0.048424] [<8131c2a0>] dump_stack_lvl+0x60/0x80 [ 0.048440] [<8108b5c0>] __warn+0xc0/0xf4 [ 0.048454] [<8108b658>] warn_slowpath_fmt+0x64/0x10c [ 0.048467] [<810bd418>] sched_core_cpu_starting+0x198/0x240 [ 0.048483] [<810c6514>] sched_cpu_starting+0x14/0x80 [ 0.048497] [<8108c0f8>] cpuhp_invoke_callback_range+0x78/0x140 [ 0.048510] [<8108d914>] notify_cpu_starting+0x94/0x140 [ 0.048523] [<8106593c>] start_secondary+0xbc/0x280 [ 0.048539] [ 0.048543] ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- [ 0.048636] Synchronize counters for CPU 1: done. ...for each but CPU 0/boot. Basic debug printks right before the mentioned line say: [ 0.048170] CPU: 1, smt_mask: So smt_mask, which is sibling mask obviously, is empty when entering the function. This is critical, as sched_core_cpu_starting() calculates core-scheduling parameters only once per CPU start, and it's crucial to have all the parameters filled in at that moment (at least it uses cpu_smt_mask() which in fact is `&cpu_sibling_map[cpu]` on MIPS). A bit of debugging led me to that set_cpu_sibling_map() performing the actual map calculation, was being invocated after notify_cpu_start(), and exactly the latter function starts CPU HP callback round (sched_core_cpu_starting() is basically a CPU HP callback). While the flow is same on ARM64 (maps after the notifier, although before calling set_cpu_online()), x86 started calculating sibling maps earlier than starting the CPU HP callbacks in Linux 4.14 (see [0] for the reference). Neither me nor my brief tests couldn't find any potential caveats in calculating the maps right after performing delay calibration, but the WARN splat is now gone. The very same debug prints now yield exactly what I expected from them: [ 0.048433] CPU: 1, smt_mask: 0-1 [0] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mips/linux.git/commit/?id=76ce7cfe35ef

Informations du CVE

Faiblesses connexes

CWE-ID Nom de la faiblesse Source
CWE Other No informations.

Métriques

Métriques Score Gravité CVSS Vecteur 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 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) 4.9.308

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 4.10 To (excluding) 4.14.273

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 4.15 To (excluding) 4.19.236

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 4.20 To (excluding) 5.4.186

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.5 To (excluding) 5.10.107

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.11 To (excluding) 5.15.30

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.16 To (excluding) 5.16.16

Références