CVE-2024-35818
Vulnerability Scoring
Status: Awaiting Analysis
Last updated: 🕘 21 Nov 2024, 09:20 UTC
Originally published on: 🕑 17 May 2024, 14:15 UTC
Time between publication and last update: 187 days
CVSS Release:
CVE-2024-35818: 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)
The exploitability of CVE-2024-35818 depends on two key factors: attack complexity (the level of effort required to execute an exploit) and privileges required (the access level an attacker needs).
No exploitability data is available for CVE-2024-35818.
A lower complexity and fewer privilege requirements make exploitation easier. Security teams should evaluate these aspects to determine the urgency of mitigation strategies, such as patch management and access control policies.
Attack Complexity (AC) measures the difficulty in executing an exploit. A high AC means that specific conditions must be met, making an attack more challenging, while a low AC means the vulnerability can be exploited with minimal effort.
Privileges Required (PR) determine the level of system access necessary for an attack. Vulnerabilities requiring no privileges are more accessible to attackers, whereas high privilege requirements limit exploitation to authorized users with elevated access.
Above is the CVSS Sub-score Breakdown for CVE-2024-35818, illustrating how Base, Impact, and Exploitability factors combine to form the overall severity rating. A higher sub-score typically indicates a more severe or easier-to-exploit vulnerability.
Below is the Impact Analysis for CVE-2024-35818, showing how Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability might be affected if the vulnerability is exploited. Higher values usually signal greater potential damage.
The EPSS score estimates the probability that this vulnerability will be exploited in the near future.
EPSS Score: 0.045% (probability of exploit)
EPSS Percentile: 18.35%
(lower percentile = lower relative risk)
This vulnerability is less risky than approximately 81.65% of others.
Unknown
Stay updated with real-time CVE vulnerabilities and take action to secure your systems. Enhance your cybersecurity posture with the latest threat intelligence and mitigation techniques. Develop the skills necessary to defend against CVEs and secure critical infrastructures. Join the top cybersecurity professionals safeguarding today's infrastructures.