In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
rcu/nocb: Fix missed RCU barrier on deoffloading
Currently, running rcutorture test with torture_type=rcu fwd_progress=8
n_barrier_cbs=8 nocbs_nthreads=8 nocbs_toggle=100 onoff_interval=60
test_boost=2, will trigger the following warning:
WARNING: CPU: 19 PID: 100 at kernel/rcu/tree_nocb.h:1061 rcu_nocb_rdp_deoffload+0x292/0x2a0
RIP: 0010:rcu_nocb_rdp_deoffload+0x292/0x2a0
Call Trace:
? __warn+0x7e/0x120
? rcu_nocb_rdp_deoffload+0x292/0x2a0
? report_bug+0x18e/0x1a0
? handle_bug+0x3d/0x70
? exc_invalid_op+0x18/0x70
? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x1a/0x20
? rcu_nocb_rdp_deoffload+0x292/0x2a0
rcu_nocb_cpu_deoffload+0x70/0xa0
rcu_nocb_toggle+0x136/0x1c0
? __pfx_rcu_nocb_toggle+0x10/0x10
kthread+0xd1/0x100
? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10
ret_from_fork+0x2f/0x50
? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10
ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30
CPU0 CPU2 CPU3
//rcu_nocb_toggle //nocb_cb_wait //rcutorture
// deoffload CPU1 // process CPU1's rdp
rcu_barrier()
rcu_segcblist_entrain()
rcu_segcblist_add_len(1);
// len == 2
// enqueue barrier
// callback to CPU1's
// rdp->cblist
rcu_do_batch()
// invoke CPU1's rdp->cblist
// callback
rcu_barrier_callback()
rcu_barrier()
mutex_lock(&rcu_state.barrier_mutex);
// still see len == 2
// enqueue barrier callback
// to CPU1's rdp->cblist
rcu_segcblist_entrain()
rcu_segcblist_add_len(1);
// len == 3
// decrement len
rcu_segcblist_add_len(-2);
kthread_parkme()
// CPU1's rdp->cblist len == 1
// Warn because there is
// still a pending barrier
// trigger warning
WARN_ON_ONCE(rcu_segcblist_n_cbs(&rdp->cblist));
cpus_read_unlock();
// wait CPU1 to comes online and
// invoke barrier callback on
// CPU1 rdp's->cblist
wait_for_completion(&rcu_state.barrier_completion);
// deoffload CPU4
cpus_read_lock()
rcu_barrier()
mutex_lock(&rcu_state.barrier_mutex);
// block on barrier_mutex
// wait rcu_barrier() on
// CPU3 to unlock barrier_mutex
// but CPU3 unlock barrier_mutex
// need to wait CPU1 comes online
// when CPU1 going online will block on cpus_write_lock
The above scenario will not only trigger a WARN_ON_ONCE(), but also
trigger a deadlock.
Thanks to nocb locking, a second racing rcu_barrier() on an offline CPU
will either observe the decremented callback counter down to 0 and spare
the callback enqueue, or rcuo will observe the new callback and keep
rdp->nocb_cb_sleep to false.
Therefore check rdp->nocb_cb_sleep before parking to make sure no
further rcu_barrier() is waiting on the rdp.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (4.7): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 4.7 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 4.7 MEDIUMCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.2% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS. FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
- Confirmed exploitation
- None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
- EG Priority
- SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from Vulnrichment. EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table
BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). Where an input reads “CISA's BOD 26-04 default”, no one has published it for this CVE, and CISA's implementation guidance says: “If “Automatable” and “Technical Impact” information items about a CVE ID are not available and the CVE ID is not in the KEV Catalog, CISA will treat its values as “no” and “total,” respectively, until CISA or a third party provides metadata about the CVE ID. CISA will always provide the Vulnrichment data for a CVE ID listed in the KEV Catalog.” Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it