CVE-2021-47553

Public on

Last Modified: UTC

Description

The CVE Program describes this issue as:

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: sched/scs: Reset task stack state in bringup_cpu() To hot unplug a CPU, the idle task on that CPU calls a few layers of C code before finally leaving the kernel. When KASAN is in use, poisoned shadow is left around for each of the active stack frames, and when shadow call stacks are in use. When shadow call stacks (SCS) are in use the task's saved SCS SP is left pointing at an arbitrary point within the task's shadow call stack. When a CPU is offlined than onlined back into the kernel, this stale state can adversely affect execution. Stale KASAN shadow can alias new stackframes and result in bogus KASAN warnings. A stale SCS SP is effectively a memory leak, and prevents a portion of the shadow call stack being used. Across a number of hotplug cycles the idle task's entire shadow call stack can become unusable. We previously fixed the KASAN issue in commit: e1b77c92981a5222 ("sched/kasan: remove stale KASAN poison after hotplug") ... by removing any stale KASAN stack poison immediately prior to onlining a CPU. Subsequently in commit: f1a0a376ca0c4ef1 ("sched/core: Initialize the idle task with preemption disabled") ... the refactoring left the KASAN and SCS cleanup in one-time idle thread initialization code rather than something invoked prior to each CPU being onlined, breaking both as above. We fixed SCS (but not KASAN) in commit: 63acd42c0d4942f7 ("sched/scs: Reset the shadow stack when idle_task_exit") ... but as this runs in the context of the idle task being offlined it's potentially fragile. To fix these consistently and more robustly, reset the SCS SP and KASAN shadow of a CPU's idle task immediately before we online that CPU in bringup_cpu(). This ensures the idle task always has a consistent state when it is running, and removes the need to so so when exiting an idle task. Whenever any thread is created, dup_task_struct() will give the task a stack which is free of KASAN shadow, and initialize the task's SCS SP, so there's no need to specially initialize either for idle thread within init_idle(), as this was only necessary to handle hotplug cycles. I've tested this on arm64 with: * gcc 11.1.0, defconfig +KASAN_INLINE, KASAN_STACK * clang 12.0.0, defconfig +KASAN_INLINE, KASAN_STACK, SHADOW_CALL_STACK ... offlining and onlining CPUS with: | while true; do | for C in /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu*/online; do | echo 0 > $C; | echo 1 > $C; | done | done

Additional information

  • Bugzilla 2283396: kernel: sched/scs: Reset task stack state in bringup_cpu()
  • CWE-402: Transmission of Private Resources into a New Sphere ('Resource Leak')
  • FAQ: Frequently asked questions about CVE-2021-47553

Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) Score Details

Important note

CVSS scores for open source components depend on vendor-specific factors (e.g. version or build chain). Therefore, Red Hat's score and impact rating can be different from NVD and other vendors. Red Hat remains the authoritative CVE Naming Authority (CNA) source for its products and services (see Red Hat classifications).

The following CVSS metrics and score provided are preliminary and subject to review.

CVSS v3 Score Breakdown
Red HatNVD

CVSS v3 Base Score

6.1

N/A

Attack Vector

Local

N/A

Attack Complexity

Low

N/A

Privileges Required

Low

N/A

User Interaction

None

N/A

Scope

Unchanged

N/A

Confidentiality Impact

High

N/A

Integrity Impact

None

N/A

Availability Impact

Low

N/A

CVSS v3 Vector

Red Hat: CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:L

Frequently Asked Questions

Why is Red Hat's CVSS v3 score or Impact different from other vendors?

For open source software shipped by multiple vendors, the CVSS base scores may vary for each vendor's version depending on the version they ship, how they ship it, the platform, and even how the software is compiled. This makes scoring of vulnerabilities difficult for third-party vulnerability databases such as NVD that only provide a single CVSS base score for each vulnerability. Red Hat scores reflect how a vulnerability affects our products specifically.

For more information, see https://access.redhat.com/solutions/762393.

My product is listed as "Under investigation" or "Affected", when will Red Hat release a fix for this vulnerability?

  • "Under investigation" doesn't necessarily mean that the product is affected by this vulnerability. It only means that our Analysis Team is still working on determining whether the product is affected and how it is affected.
  • "Affected" means that our Analysis Team has determined that this product is affected by this vulnerability and might release a fix to address this in the near future.

What can I do if my product is listed as "Will not fix"?

A "will not fix" status means that a fix for an affected product version is not planned or not possible due to complexity, which may create additional risk.

Available options depend mostly on the Impact of the vulnerability and the current Life Cycle phase of your product. Overall, you have the following options:
  • Upgrade to a supported product version that includes a fix for this vulnerability (recommended).
  • Apply a mitigation (if one exists).
  • Open a support case to request a prioritization of releasing a fix for this vulnerability.

What can I do if my product is listed as "Fix deferred"?

A deferred status means that a fix for an affected product version is not guaranteed due to higher-priority development work.

Available options depend mostly on the Impact of the vulnerability and the current Life Cycle phase of your product. Overall, you have the following options:
  • Apply a mitigation (if one exists).
  • Open a support case to request a prioritization of releasing a fix for this vulnerability.
  • Red Hat Engineering focuses on addressing high-priority issues based on their complexity or limited lifecycle support. Therefore, lower-priority issues will not receive immediate fixes.

What is a mitigation?

A mitigation is an action that can be taken to reduce the impact of a security vulnerability, without deploying any fixes.

I have a Red Hat product but it is not in the above list, is it affected?

The listed products were found to include one or more of the components that this vulnerability affects. These products underwent a thorough evaluation to determine their affectedness by this vulnerability. Note that layered products (such as container-based offerings) that consume affected components from any of the products listed in this table may be affected and are not represented.

Why is my security scanner reporting my product as vulnerable to this vulnerability even though my product version is fixed or not affected?

In order to maintain code stability and compatibility, Red Hat usually does not rebase packages to entirely new versions. Instead, we backport fixes and new features to an older version of the package we distribute. This can result in some security scanners that only consider the package version to report the package as vulnerable. To avoid this, we suggest that you use an approved vulnerability scanner from our Red Hat Vulnerability Scanner Certification program.

Want to get errata notifications? Sign up here.