BDU:2025-14378

CVE-2021-47396

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mac80211-hwsim: fix late beacon hrtimer handling Thomas explained in https://lore.kernel.org/r/87mtoeb4hb.ffs@tglx that our handling of the hrtimer here is wrong: If the timer fires late (e.g. due to vCPU scheduling, as reported by Dmitry/syzbot) then it tries to actually rearm the timer at the next deadline, which might be in the past already: 1 2 3 N N+1 | | | ... | | ^ intended to fire here (1) ^ next deadline here (2) ^ actually fired here The next time it fires, it's later, but will still try to schedule for the next deadline (now 3), etc. until it catches up with N, but that might take a long time, causing stalls etc. Now, all of this is simulation, so we just have to fix it, but note that the behaviour is wrong even per spec, since there's no value then in sending all those beacons unaligned - they should be aligned to the TBTT (1, 2, 3, ... ...

CVE-2021-47396

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mac80211-hwsim: fix late beacon hrtimer handling Thomas explained in https://lore.kernel.org/r/87mtoeb4hb.ffs@tglx that our handling of the hrtimer here is wrong: If the timer fires late (e.g. due to vCPU scheduling, as reported by Dmitry/syzbot) then it tries to actually rearm the timer at the next deadline, which might be in the past already: 1 2 3 N N+1 | | | ... | | ^ intended to fire here (1) ^ next deadline here (2) ^ actually fired here The next time it fires, it's later, but will still try to schedule for the next deadline (now 3), etc. until it catches up with N, but that might take a long time, causing stalls etc. Now, all of this is simulation, so we just have to fix it, but note that the behaviour is wrong even per spec, since there's no value then in sending all those beacons unaligned - they should be aligned to the TBTT (1, 2, 3, ... ...

CVE-2021-47396

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mac80211-hwsim: fix late beacon hrtimer handling Thomas explained in https://lore.kernel.org/r/87mtoeb4hb.ffs@tglx that our handling of the hrtimer here is wrong: If the timer fires late (e.g. due to vCPU scheduling, as reported by Dmitry/syzbot) then it tries to actually rearm the timer at the next deadline, which might be in the past already: 1 2 3 N N+1 | | | ... | | ^ intended to fire here (1) ^ next deadline here (2) ^ actually fired here The next time it fires, it's later, but will still try to schedule for the next deadline (now 3), etc. until it catches up with N, but that might take a long time, causing stalls etc. Now, all of this is simulation, so we just have to fix it, but note that the behaviour is wrong even per spec, since there's no value then in sending all those beacons unali

CVE-2021-47396

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: m ...

GHSA-cwq4-fr9x-6844

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mac80211-hwsim: fix late beacon hrtimer handling Thomas explained in https://lore.kernel.org/r/87mtoeb4hb.ffs@tglx that our handling of the hrtimer here is wrong: If the timer fires late (e.g. due to vCPU scheduling, as reported by Dmitry/syzbot) then it tries to actually rearm the timer at the next deadline, which might be in the past already: 1 2 3 N N+1 | | | ... | | ^ intended to fire here (1) ^ next deadline here (2) ^ actually fired here The next time it fires, it's later, but will still try to schedule for the next deadline (now 3), etc. until it catches up with N, but that might take a long time, causing stalls etc. Now, all of this is simulation, so we just have to fix it, but note that the behaviour is wrong even per spec, since there's no value then in sending all those beacons un...