CVE-2024-35818 Affecting kernel-rt-modules package, versions *
Threat Intelligence
The probability is the direct output of the EPSS model, and conveys an overall sense of the threat of exploitation in the wild. The percentile measures the EPSS probability relative to all known EPSS scores. Note: This data is updated daily, relying on the latest available EPSS model version. Check out the EPSS documentation for more details.
Do your applications use this vulnerable package?
In a few clicks we can analyze your entire application and see what components are vulnerable in your application, and suggest you quick fixes.
Test your applications- Snyk IDSNYK-CENTOS9-KERNELRTMODULES-6875986
- published18 May 2024
- disclosed17 May 2024
Introduced: 17 May 2024
CVE-2024-35818 (opens in a new tab)How to fix?
There is no fixed version for Centos:9 kernel-rt-modules.
NVD Description
Note: Versions mentioned in the description apply only to the upstream kernel-rt-modules package and not the kernel-rt-modules package as distributed by Centos.
See How to fix? for Centos:9 relevant fixed versions and status.
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
LoongArch: Define the __io_aw() hook as mmiowb()
Commit fb24ea52f78e0d595852e ("drivers: Remove explicit invocations of mmiowb()") remove all mmiowb() in drivers, but it says:
"NOTE: mmiowb() has only ever guaranteed ordering in conjunction with spin_unlock(). However, pairing each mmiowb() removal in this patch with the corresponding call to spin_unlock() is not at all trivial, so there is a small chance that this change may regress any drivers incorrectly relying on mmiowb() to order MMIO writes between CPUs using lock-free synchronisation."
The mmio in radeon_ring_commit() is protected by a mutex rather than a spinlock, but in the mutex fastpath it behaves similar to spinlock. We can add mmiowb() calls in the radeon driver but the maintainer says he doesn't like such a workaround, and radeon is not the only example of mutex protected mmio.
So we should extend the mmiowb tracking system from spinlock to mutex, and maybe other locking primitives. This is not easy and error prone, so we solve it in the architectural code, by simply defining the __io_aw() hook as mmiowb(). And we no longer need to override queued_spin_unlock() so use the generic definition.
Without this, we get such an error when run 'glxgears' on weak ordering architectures such as LoongArch:
radeon 0000:04:00.0: ring 0 stalled for more than 10324msec radeon 0000:04:00.0: ring 3 stalled for more than 10240msec radeon 0000:04:00.0: GPU lockup (current fence id 0x000000000001f412 last fence id 0x000000000001f414 on ring 3) radeon 0000:04:00.0: GPU lockup (current fence id 0x000000000000f940 last fence id 0x000000000000f941 on ring 0) radeon 0000:04:00.0: scheduling IB failed (-35). [drm:radeon_gem_va_ioctl [radeon]] ERROR Couldn't update BO_VA (-35) radeon 0000:04:00.0: scheduling IB failed (-35). [drm:radeon_gem_va_ioctl [radeon]] ERROR Couldn't update BO_VA (-35) radeon 0000:04:00.0: scheduling IB failed (-35). [drm:radeon_gem_va_ioctl [radeon]] ERROR Couldn't update BO_VA (-35) radeon 0000:04:00.0: scheduling IB failed (-35). [drm:radeon_gem_va_ioctl [radeon]] ERROR Couldn't update BO_VA (-35) radeon 0000:04:00.0: scheduling IB failed (-35). [drm:radeon_gem_va_ioctl [radeon]] ERROR Couldn't update BO_VA (-35) radeon 0000:04:00.0: scheduling IB failed (-35). [drm:radeon_gem_va_ioctl [radeon]] ERROR Couldn't update BO_VA (-35) radeon 0000:04:00.0: scheduling IB failed (-35). [drm:radeon_gem_va_ioctl [radeon]] ERROR Couldn't update BO_VA (-35)
References
- https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2024-35818
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/0b61a7dc6712b78799b3949997e8a5e94db5c4b0
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/97cd43ba824aec764f5ea2790d0c0a318f885167
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/9adec248bba33b1503252caf8e59d81febfc5ceb
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/9c68ece8b2a5c5ff9b2fcaea923dd73efeb174cd
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/d7d7c6cdea875be3b241d7d39873bb431db7154d