CVE-2024-56547
Public on
Last Modified:
Moderate
Moderate Impact
What does this mean?
Description
The MITRE CVE dictionary describes this issue as
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
rcu/nocb: Fix missed RCU barrier on deoffloading
Currently, running rcutorture test with torture_type=rcu fwd_progress=8
n_barrier_cbs=8 nocbs_nthreads=8 nocbs_toggle=100 onoff_interval=60
test_boost=2, will trigger the following warning:
WARNING: CPU: 19 PID: 100 at kernel/rcu/tree_nocb.h:1061 rcu_nocb_rdp_deoffload+0x292/0x2a0
RIP: 0010:rcu_nocb_rdp_deoffload+0x292/0x2a0
Call Trace:
<TASK>
? __warn+0x7e/0x120
? rcu_nocb_rdp_deoffload+0x292/0x2a0
? report_bug+0x18e/0x1a0
? handle_bug+0x3d/0x70
? exc_invalid_op+0x18/0x70
? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x1a/0x20
? rcu_nocb_rdp_deoffload+0x292/0x2a0
rcu_nocb_cpu_deoffload+0x70/0xa0
rcu_nocb_toggle+0x136/0x1c0
? __pfx_rcu_nocb_toggle+0x10/0x10
kthread+0xd1/0x100
? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10
ret_from_fork+0x2f/0x50
? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10
ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30
</TASK>
CPU0 CPU2 CPU3
//rcu_nocb_toggle //nocb_cb_wait //rcutorture
// deoffload CPU1 // process CPU1's rdp
rcu_barrier()
rcu_segcblist_entrain()
rcu_segcblist_add_len(1);
// len == 2
// enqueue barrier
// callback to CPU1's
// rdp->cblist
rcu_do_batch()
// invoke CPU1's rdp->cblist
// callback
rcu_barrier_callback()
rcu_barrier()
mutex_lock(&rcu_state.barrier_mutex);
// still see len == 2
// enqueue barrier callback
// to CPU1's rdp->cblist
rcu_segcblist_entrain()
rcu_segcblist_add_len(1);
// len == 3
// decrement len
rcu_segcblist_add_len(-2);
kthread_parkme()
// CPU1's rdp->cblist len == 1
// Warn because there is
// still a pending barrier
// trigger warning
WARN_ON_ONCE(rcu_segcblist_n_cbs(&rdp->cblist));
cpus_read_unlock();
// wait CPU1 to comes online and
// invoke barrier callback on
// CPU1 rdp's->cblist
wait_for_completion(&rcu_state.barrier_completion);
// deoffload CPU4
cpus_read_lock()
rcu_barrier()
mutex_lock(&rcu_state.barrier_mutex);
// block on barrier_mutex
// wait rcu_barrier() on
// CPU3 to unlock barrier_mutex
// but CPU3 unlock barrier_mutex
// need to wait CPU1 comes online
// when CPU1 going online will block on cpus_write_lock
The above scenario will not only trigger a WARN_ON_ONCE(), but also
trigger a deadlock.
Thanks to nocb locking, a second racing rcu_barrier() on an offline CPU
will either observe the decremented callback counter down to 0 and spare
the callback enqueue, or rcuo will observe the new callback and keep
rdp->nocb_cb_sleep to false.
Therefore check rdp->nocb_cb_sleep before parking to make sure no
further rcu_barrier() is waiting on the rdp.
Additional Information
- This content is not included.Bugzilla 2334521: kernel: rcu/nocb: Fix missed RCU barrier on deoffloading
- FAQ: Frequently asked questions about CVE-2024-56547
- Offline Security Data data is available for integration with other systems. See Offline Security Data API to get started.
External References
Content from www.cve.org is not included.https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2024-56547
Content from nvd.nist.gov is not included.https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-56547
Affected Packages and Issued Red Hat Security Errata
| Products / Services | Components | State | Errata |
|---|---|---|---|
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10 | kernel | Affected | |
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10.0 Extended Update Support | kernel | Fixed | RHSA-2026:22334 |
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 | kernel | Not affected | |
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 | kernel | Not affected | |
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 | kernel-rt | Not affected | |
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 | kernel | Not affected | |
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 | kernel-rt | Not affected | |
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 | kernel | Not affected | |
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 | kernel-rt | Not affected |
Frequently Asked Questions
Why is Red Hat's CVSS v3 score or Impact different from other vendors?
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"?
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 This content is not included.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"?
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 This content is not included.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?
I have a Red Hat product but it is not in the above list, is it affected?
Why is my security scanner reporting my product as vulnerable to this vulnerability even though my product version is fixed or not affected?
My product is listed as "Out of Support Scope". What does this mean?
Not sure what something means? Check out our Security Glossary.