In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
mm: Fix a hmm_range_fault() livelock / starvation problem
If hmm_range_fault() fails a folio_trylock() in do_swap_page,
trying to acquire the lock of a device-private folio for migration,
to ram, the function will spin until it succeeds grabbing the lock.
However, if the process holding the lock is depending on a work
item to be completed, which is scheduled on the same CPU as the
spinning hmm_range_fault(), that work item might be starved and
we end up in a livelock / starvation situation which is never
resolved.
This can happen, for example if the process holding the
device-private folio lock is stuck in
migrate_device_unmap()->lru_add_drain_all()
sinc lru_add_drain_all() requires a short work-item
to be run on all online cpus to complete.
A prerequisite for this to happen is:
a) Both zone device and system memory folios are considered in
migrate_device_unmap(), so that there is a reason to call
lru_add_drain_all() for a system memory folio while a
folio lock is held on a zone device folio.
b) The zone device folio has an initial mapcount > 1 which causes
at least one migration PTE entry insertion to be deferred to
try_to_migrate(), which can happen after the call to
lru_add_drain_all().
c) No or voluntary only preemption.
This all seems pretty unlikely to happen, but indeed is hit by
the "xe_exec_system_allocator" igt test.
Resolve this by waiting for the folio to be unlocked if the
folio_trylock() fails in do_swap_page().
Rename migration_entry_wait_on_locked() to
softleaf_entry_wait_unlock() and update its documentation to
indicate the new use-case.
Future code improvements might consider moving
the lru_add_drain_all() call in migrate_device_unmap() to be
called *after* all pages have migration entries inserted.
That would eliminate also b) above.
v2:
- Instead of a cond_resched() in hmm_range_fault(),
eliminate the problem by waiting for the folio to be unlocked
in do_swap_page() (Alistair Popple, Andrew Morton)
v3:
- Add a stub migration_entry_wait_on_locked() for the
!CONFIG_MIGRATION case. (Kernel Test Robot)
v4:
- Rename migrate_entry_wait_on_locked() to
softleaf_entry_wait_on_locked() and update docs (Alistair Popple)
v5:
- Add a WARN_ON_ONCE() for the !CONFIG_MIGRATION
version of softleaf_entry_wait_on_locked().
- Modify wording around function names in the commit message
(Andrew Morton)
(cherry picked from commit a69d1ab971a624c6f112cea61536569d579c3215)
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (5.5): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 5.5 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 5.5 MEDIUMCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- <0.1% 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