Описание
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
sched/fair: Fix zero_vruntime tracking fix
John reported that stress-ng-yield could make his machine unhappy and
managed to bisect it to commit b3d99f43c72b ("sched/fair: Fix
zero_vruntime tracking").
The combination of yield and that commit was specific enough to
hypothesize the following scenario:
Suppose we have 2 runnable tasks, both doing yield. Then one will be
eligible and one will not be, because the average position must be in
between these two entities.
Therefore, the runnable task will be eligible, and be promoted a full
slice (all the tasks do is yield after all). This causes it to jump over
the other task and now the other task is eligible and current is no
longer. So we schedule.
Since we are runnable, there is no {de,en}queue. All we have is the
__{en,de}queue_entity() from {put_prev,set_next}_task(). But per the
fingered commit, those two no longer move zero_vruntime.
All that moves zero_vruntime are tick and full {de,en}queue.
This means, that if the two tasks playing leapfrog can reach the
critical speed to reach the overflow point inside one tick's worth of
time, we're up a creek.
Additionally, when multiple cgroups are involved, there is no guarantee
the tick will in fact hit every cgroup in a timely manner. Statistically
speaking it will, but that same statistics does not rule out the
possibility of one cgroup not getting a tick for a significant amount of
time -- however unlikely.
Therefore, just like with the yield() case, force an update at the end
of every slice. This ensures the update is never more than a single
slice behind and the whole thing is within 2 lag bounds as per the
comment on entity_key().
A flaw was found in the Linux kernel. Incorrect tracking of virtual runtime (zero_vruntime) in the scheduler's fair scheduling component can occur under specific conditions, such as when tasks frequently yield or when multiple control groups (cgroups) are active. This can lead to the scheduler's internal state becoming inconsistent, potentially causing system instability or unresponsiveness. A local attacker could exploit this vulnerability to cause a denial of service.
Затронутые пакеты
| Платформа | Пакет | Состояние | Рекомендация | Релиз |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10 | kernel | Affected | ||
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 | kernel | Not affected | ||
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 | kernel | Affected | ||
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 | kernel-rt | Affected | ||
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 | kernel | Affected | ||
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 | kernel-rt | Affected | ||
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 | kernel | Affected | ||
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 | kernel-rt | Affected |
Показывать по
Дополнительная информация
Статус:
7 High
CVSS3
Связанные уязвимости
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: sched/fair: Fix zero_vruntime tracking fix John reported that stress-ng-yield could make his machine unhappy and managed to bisect it to commit b3d99f43c72b ("sched/fair: Fix zero_vruntime tracking"). The combination of yield and that commit was specific enough to hypothesize the following scenario: Suppose we have 2 runnable tasks, both doing yield. Then one will be eligible and one will not be, because the average position must be in between these two entities. Therefore, the runnable task will be eligible, and be promoted a full slice (all the tasks do is yield after all). This causes it to jump over the other task and now the other task is eligible and current is no longer. So we schedule. Since we are runnable, there is no {de,en}queue. All we have is the __{en,de}queue_entity() from {put_prev,set_next}_task(). But per the fingered commit, those two no longer move zero_vruntime. All that moves zero_vruntime are...
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: sched/fair: Fix zero_vruntime tracking fix John reported that stress-ng-yield could make his machine unhappy and managed to bisect it to commit b3d99f43c72b ("sched/fair: Fix zero_vruntime tracking"). The combination of yield and that commit was specific enough to hypothesize the following scenario: Suppose we have 2 runnable tasks, both doing yield. Then one will be eligible and one will not be, because the average position must be in between these two entities. Therefore, the runnable task will be eligible, and be promoted a full slice (all the tasks do is yield after all). This causes it to jump over the other task and now the other task is eligible and current is no longer. So we schedule. Since we are runnable, there is no {de,en}queue. All we have is the __{en,de}queue_entity() from {put_prev,set_next}_task(). But per the fingered commit, those two no longer move zero_vruntime. All that moves zero_vruntime
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: s ...
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: sched/fair: Fix zero_vruntime tracking fix John reported that stress-ng-yield could make his machine unhappy and managed to bisect it to commit b3d99f43c72b ("sched/fair: Fix zero_vruntime tracking"). The combination of yield and that commit was specific enough to hypothesize the following scenario: Suppose we have 2 runnable tasks, both doing yield. Then one will be eligible and one will not be, because the average position must be in between these two entities. Therefore, the runnable task will be eligible, and be promoted a full slice (all the tasks do is yield after all). This causes it to jump over the other task and now the other task is eligible and current is no longer. So we schedule. Since we are runnable, there is no {de,en}queue. All we have is the __{en,de}queue_entity() from {put_prev,set_next}_task(). But per the fingered commit, those two no longer move zero_vruntime. All that moves zero_vrunt...
7 High
CVSS3