memcg_data 0 without checking and unqueueing a THP folio from deferred split list; which is unfortunate, since the split_queue_lock depends on the memcg (when memcg is enabled); so swapout has been unqueueing such THPs later, when freeing the folio, using the pgdat's lock instead: potentially corrupting the memcg's list. __remove_mapping() has frozen refcount to 0 here, so no problem with calling folio_unqueue_deferred_split() before resetting memcg_data. That goes back to 5.4 commit 87eaceb3faa5 ("mm: thp: make deferred split shrinker memcg aware"): which included a check on swapcache before adding to deferred queue, but no check on deferred queue before adding THP to swapcache. That worked fine with the usual sequence of events in reclaim (though there were a couple of rare ways in which a THP on deferred queue could have been swapped out), but 6.12 commit dafff3f4c850 ("mm: split underused THPs") avoids splitting underused THPs in reclaim, which makes swapcache THPs on deferred queue commonplace. Keep the check on swapcache before adding to deferred queue? Yes: it is no longer essential, but preserves the existing behaviour, and is likely to be a worthwhile optimization (vmstat showed much more traffic on the queue under swapping load if the check was removed); update its comment. Memcg-v1 move (deprecated): mem_cgroup_move_account() has been changing folio->memcg_data without checking and unqueueing a THP folio from the deferred list, sometimes corrupting "from" memcg's list, like swapout. Refcount is non-zero here, so folio_unqueue_deferred_split() can only be used in a WARN_ON_ONCE to validate the fix, which must be done earlier: mem_cgroup_move_charge_pte_range() first try to split the THP (splitting of course unqueues), or skip it if that fails. Not ideal, but moving charge has been requested, and khugepaged should repair the THP later: nobody wants new custom unqueueing code just for this deprecated case. The 87eaceb3faa5 commit did have the code to move from one deferred list to another (but was not conscious of its unsafety while refcount non-0); but that was removed by 5.6 commit fac0516b5534 ("mm: thp: don't need care deferred split queue in memcg charge move path"), which argued that the existence of a PMD mapping guarantees that the THP cannot be on a deferred list. As above, false in rare cases, and now commonly false. Backport to 6.11 should be straightforward. Earlier backports must take care that other _deferred_list fixes and dependencies are included. There is not a strong case for backports, but they can fix cornercases.">

CVE-2024-53079 : Détail

CVE-2024-53079

5.5
/
Moyen
0.04%V3
Local
2024-11-19
17h45 +00:00
2024-12-19
09h38 +00:00
CVE.org
NVD
Notifications pour un CVE
Restez informé de toutes modifications pour un CVE spécifique.
Gestion des notifications

Descriptions du CVE

mm/thp: fix deferred split unqueue naming and locking

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm/thp: fix deferred split unqueue naming and locking Recent changes are putting more pressure on THP deferred split queues: under load revealing long-standing races, causing list_del corruptions, "Bad page state"s and worse (I keep BUGs in both of those, so usually don't get to see how badly they end up without). The relevant recent changes being 6.8's mTHP, 6.10's mTHP swapout, and 6.12's mTHP swapin, improved swap allocation, and underused THP splitting. Before fixing locking: rename misleading folio_undo_large_rmappable(), which does not undo large_rmappable, to folio_unqueue_deferred_split(), which is what it does. But that and its out-of-line __callee are mm internals of very limited usability: add comment and WARN_ON_ONCEs to check usage; and return a bool to say if a deferred split was unqueued, which can then be used in WARN_ON_ONCEs around safety checks (sparing callers the arcane conditionals in __folio_unqueue_deferred_split()). Just omit the folio_unqueue_deferred_split() from free_unref_folios(), all of whose callers now call it beforehand (and if any forget then bad_page() will tell) - except for its caller put_pages_list(), which itself no longer has any callers (and will be deleted separately). Swapout: mem_cgroup_swapout() has been resetting folio->memcg_data 0 without checking and unqueueing a THP folio from deferred split list; which is unfortunate, since the split_queue_lock depends on the memcg (when memcg is enabled); so swapout has been unqueueing such THPs later, when freeing the folio, using the pgdat's lock instead: potentially corrupting the memcg's list. __remove_mapping() has frozen refcount to 0 here, so no problem with calling folio_unqueue_deferred_split() before resetting memcg_data. That goes back to 5.4 commit 87eaceb3faa5 ("mm: thp: make deferred split shrinker memcg aware"): which included a check on swapcache before adding to deferred queue, but no check on deferred queue before adding THP to swapcache. That worked fine with the usual sequence of events in reclaim (though there were a couple of rare ways in which a THP on deferred queue could have been swapped out), but 6.12 commit dafff3f4c850 ("mm: split underused THPs") avoids splitting underused THPs in reclaim, which makes swapcache THPs on deferred queue commonplace. Keep the check on swapcache before adding to deferred queue? Yes: it is no longer essential, but preserves the existing behaviour, and is likely to be a worthwhile optimization (vmstat showed much more traffic on the queue under swapping load if the check was removed); update its comment. Memcg-v1 move (deprecated): mem_cgroup_move_account() has been changing folio->memcg_data without checking and unqueueing a THP folio from the deferred list, sometimes corrupting "from" memcg's list, like swapout. Refcount is non-zero here, so folio_unqueue_deferred_split() can only be used in a WARN_ON_ONCE to validate the fix, which must be done earlier: mem_cgroup_move_charge_pte_range() first try to split the THP (splitting of course unqueues), or skip it if that fails. Not ideal, but moving charge has been requested, and khugepaged should repair the THP later: nobody wants new custom unqueueing code just for this deprecated case. The 87eaceb3faa5 commit did have the code to move from one deferred list to another (but was not conscious of its unsafety while refcount non-0); but that was removed by 5.6 commit fac0516b5534 ("mm: thp: don't need care deferred split queue in memcg charge move path"), which argued that the existence of a PMD mapping guarantees that the THP cannot be on a deferred list. As above, false in rare cases, and now commonly false. Backport to 6.11 should be straightforward. Earlier backports must take care that other _deferred_list fixes and dependencies are included. There is not a strong case for backports, but they can fix cornercases.

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 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 From (including) 5.4 To (excluding) 6.6.62

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.7 To (excluding) 6.11.8

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.12

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.12

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.12

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.12

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.12

Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.12

Références