Bug 2394602 (CVE-2025-39744)
| Summary: | CVE-2025-39744 kernel: rcu: Fix rcu_read_unlock() deadloop due to IRQ work | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Other] Security Response | Reporter: | OSIDB Bzimport <bzimport> |
| Component: | vulnerability | Assignee: | Product Security DevOps Team <prodsec-dev> |
| Status: | NEW --- | QA Contact: | |
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | unspecified | Keywords: | Security |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | --- | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | Type: | --- | |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: rcu: Fix rcu_read_unlock() deadloop due to IRQ work During rcu_read_unlock_special(), if this happens during irq_exit(), we can lockup if an IPI is issued. This is because the IPI itself triggers the irq_exit() path causing a recursive lock up. This is precisely what Xiongfeng found when invoking a BPF program on the trace_tick_stop() tracepoint As shown in the trace below. Fix by managing the irq_work state correctly. irq_exit() __irq_exit_rcu() /* in_hardirq() returns false after this */ preempt_count_sub(HARDIRQ_OFFSET) tick_irq_exit() tick_nohz_irq_exit() tick_nohz_stop_sched_tick() trace_tick_stop() /* a bpf prog is hooked on this trace point */ __bpf_trace_tick_stop() bpf_trace_run2() rcu_read_unlock_special() /* will send a IPI to itself */ irq_work_queue_on(&rdp->defer_qs_iw, rdp->cpu); A simple reproducer can also be obtained by doing the following in tick_irq_exit(). It will hang on boot without the patch: static inline void tick_irq_exit(void) { + rcu_read_lock(); + WRITE_ONCE(current->rcu_read_unlock_special.b.need_qs, true); + rcu_read_unlock(); + [neeraj: Apply Frederic's suggested fix for PREEMPT_RT]