Bug 563463 (CVE-2010-0419)

Summary: CVE-2010-0419 kvm: emulator privilege escalation segment selector check
Product: [Other] Security Response Reporter: Petr Matousek <pmatouse>
Component: vulnerabilityAssignee: Red Hat Product Security <security-response-team>
Status: CLOSED ERRATA QA Contact:
Severity: high Docs Contact:
Priority: high    
Version: unspecifiedCC: arozansk, ehabkost, gcosta, gleb, lwang, mtosatti, pbonzini, pmatouse, security-response-team, vdanen
Target Milestone: ---Keywords: Security
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2011-04-05 19:57:43 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Bug Depends On: 563464, 563465, 563466, 563468    
Bug Blocks:    

Description Petr Matousek 2010-02-10 10:26:47 UTC
Paolo Bonzini found a bug in KVM that can be used to bypass proper permission
checking while loading segment selectors. Malicious guest userspace process
running in SMP guest can trick the emulator into loading kernel segment selector
if it has access to IO port or MMIO region. To do so it should run legitimate
instruction that does IO and will cause vcpu to enter emulator in one thread and
replace this instruction to kernel selector loading one from another thread. If
instruction is replaced after KVM entered emulator, but before instruction is
fetched emulator will be tricked to execute privileged instruction without
permission checking.

Comment 4 errata-xmlrpc 2010-03-01 19:23:46 UTC
This issue has been addressed in following products:

  Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5

Via RHSA-2010:0126 https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2010-0126.html

Comment 5 errata-xmlrpc 2010-03-24 15:46:57 UTC
This issue has been addressed in following products:

  Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization for RHEL-5

Via RHSA-2010:0172 https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2010-0172.html