Описание
Уязвимость компонента x86 ядра операционной системы Linux связана с неправильной блокировкой. Эксплуатация уязвимости может позволить нарушителю вызвать отказ в обслуживании
Вендор
Наименование ПО
Версия ПО
Тип ПО
Операционные системы и аппаратные платформы
Уровень опасности уязвимости
Возможные меры по устранению уязвимости
Статус уязвимости
Наличие эксплойта
Информация об устранении
Ссылки на источники
Идентификаторы других систем описаний уязвимостей
- CVE
EPSS
5.1 Medium
CVSS3
3.7 Low
CVSS2
Связанные уязвимости
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: x86: stop playing stack games in profile_pc() The 'profile_pc()' function is used for timer-based profiling, which isn't really all that relevant any more to begin with, but it also ends up making assumptions based on the stack layout that aren't necessarily valid. Basically, the code tries to account the time spent in spinlocks to the caller rather than the spinlock, and while I support that as a concept, it's not worth the code complexity or the KASAN warnings when no serious profiling is done using timers anyway these days. And the code really does depend on stack layout that is only true in the simplest of cases. We've lost the comment at some point (I think when the 32-bit and 64-bit code was unified), but it used to say: Assume the lock function has either no stack frame or a copy of eflags from PUSHF. which explains why it just blindly loads a word or two straight off the stack pointer and then takes a...
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: x86: stop playing stack games in profile_pc() The 'profile_pc()' function is used for timer-based profiling, which isn't really all that relevant any more to begin with, but it also ends up making assumptions based on the stack layout that aren't necessarily valid. Basically, the code tries to account the time spent in spinlocks to the caller rather than the spinlock, and while I support that as a concept, it's not worth the code complexity or the KASAN warnings when no serious profiling is done using timers anyway these days. And the code really does depend on stack layout that is only true in the simplest of cases. We've lost the comment at some point (I think when the 32-bit and 64-bit code was unified), but it used to say: Assume the lock function has either no stack frame or a copy of eflags from PUSHF. which explains why it just blindly loads a word or two straight off the stack pointer and then takes a minim...
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: x86: stop playing stack games in profile_pc() The 'profile_pc()' function is used for timer-based profiling, which isn't really all that relevant any more to begin with, but it also ends up making assumptions based on the stack layout that aren't necessarily valid. Basically, the code tries to account the time spent in spinlocks to the caller rather than the spinlock, and while I support that as a concept, it's not worth the code complexity or the KASAN warnings when no serious profiling is done using timers anyway these days. And the code really does depend on stack layout that is only true in the simplest of cases. We've lost the comment at some point (I think when the 32-bit and 64-bit code was unified), but it used to say: Assume the lock function has either no stack frame or a copy of eflags from PUSHF. which explains why it just blindly loads a word or two straight off the stack pointer and then takes a
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: x ...
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: x86: stop playing stack games in profile_pc() The 'profile_pc()' function is used for timer-based profiling, which isn't really all that relevant any more to begin with, but it also ends up making assumptions based on the stack layout that aren't necessarily valid. Basically, the code tries to account the time spent in spinlocks to the caller rather than the spinlock, and while I support that as a concept, it's not worth the code complexity or the KASAN warnings when no serious profiling is done using timers anyway these days. And the code really does depend on stack layout that is only true in the simplest of cases. We've lost the comment at some point (I think when the 32-bit and 64-bit code was unified), but it used to say: Assume the lock function has either no stack frame or a copy of eflags from PUSHF. which explains why it just blindly loads a word or two straight off the stack pointer and then takes...
EPSS
5.1 Medium
CVSS3
3.7 Low
CVSS2