Affected: Alpaquita:23: linux-lts, Alpaquita:25: linux-lts, Alpaquita:stream: linux-lts

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

slimbus: qcom-ngd-ctrl: Avoid ABBA on tx_lock/ctrl->lock

During the SSR/PDR down notification the tx_lock is taken with the intent to provide synchronization with active DMA transfers.

But during this period qcom_slim_ngd_down() is invoked, which ends up in slim_report_absent(), which takes the slim_controller lock. In multiple other codepaths these two locks are taken in the opposite order (i.e. slim_controller then tx_lock).

The result is a lockdep splat, and a possible deadlock:

rprocctl/449 is trying to acquire lock: ffff00009793e620 (&ctrl->lock){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: slim_report_absent (drivers/slimbus/core.c:322) slimbus

but task is already holding lock: ffff00009793fb50 (&ctrl->tx_lock){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: qcom_slim_ngd_ssr_pdr_notify (drivers/slimbus/qcom-ngd-ctrl.c:1475) slim_qcom_ngd_ctrl

which lock already depends on the new lock.

Possible unsafe locking scenario:

CPU0 CPU1 ---- ---- lock(&ctrl->tx_lock); lock(&ctrl->lock); lock(&ctrl->tx_lock); lock(&ctrl->lock);

The assumption is that the comment refers to the desire to not call qcom_slim_ngd_exit_dma() while we have an ongoing DMA TX transaction. But any such transaction is initiated and completed within a single qcom_slim_ngd_xfer_msg().

Prior to calling qcom_slim_ngd_exit_dma() the slim_controller is torn…

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

slimbus: qcom-ngd-ctrl: Avoid ABBA on tx_lock/ctrl->lock

During the SSR/PDR down notification the tx_lock is taken with the intent to provide synchronization with active DMA transfers.

But during this period qcom_slim_ngd_down() is invoked, which ends up in slim_report_absent(), which takes the slim_controller lock. In multiple other codepaths these two locks are taken in the opposite order (i.e. slim_controller then tx_lock).

The result is a lockdep splat, and a possible deadlock:

rprocctl/449 is trying to acquire lock: ffff00009793e620 (&ctrl->lock){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: slim_report_absent (drivers/slimbus/core.c:322) slimbus

but task is already holding lock: ffff00009793fb50 (&ctrl->tx_lock){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: qcom_slim_ngd_ssr_pdr_notify (drivers/slimbus/qcom-ngd-ctrl.c:1475) slim_qcom_ngd_ctrl

which lock already depends on the new lock.

Possible unsafe locking scenario:

CPU0 CPU1 ---- ---- lock(&ctrl->tx_lock); lock(&ctrl->lock); lock(&ctrl->tx_lock); lock(&ctrl->lock);

The assumption is that the comment refers to the desire to not call qcom_slim_ngd_exit_dma() while we have an ongoing DMA TX transaction. But any such transaction is initiated and completed within a single qcom_slim_ngd_xfer_msg().

Prior to calling qcom_slim_ngd_exit_dma() the slim_controller is torn…

Security update for the Linux Kernel

Security update for the Linux Kernel

Affected: Ubuntu:16.04:LTS: linux-hwe-edge, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-aws-5.0, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-aws-5.3, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-azure, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-azure-5.3, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-azure-edge, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-gcp, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-gcp-5.3, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-gke-4.15, Ubuntu:18.04:LTS: linux-gke-5.4 and 202 more

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: slimbus: qcom-ngd-ctrl: Avoid ABBA on tx_lock/ctrl->lock During the SSR/PDR down notification the tx_lock is taken with the intent to provide synchronization with active DMA transfers. But during this period qcom_slim_ngd_down() is invoked, which ends up in slim_report_absent(), which takes the slim_controller lock. In multiple other codepaths these two locks are taken in the opposite order (i.e. slim_controller then tx_lock). The result is a lockdep splat, and a possible deadlock: rprocctl/449 is trying to acquire lock: ffff00009793e620 (&ctrl->lock){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: slim_report_absent (drivers/slimbus/core.c:322) slimbus but task is already holding lock: ffff00009793fb50 (&ctrl->tx_lock){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: qcom_slim_ngd_ssr_pdr_notify (drivers/slimbus/qcom-ngd-ctrl.c:1475) slim_qcom_ngd_ctrl which lock already depends on the new lock. Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 CPU1 ---- ---- lock(&ctrl->tx_lock); lock(&ctrl->lock); lock(&ctrl->tx_lock); lock(&ctrl->lock); The assumption is that the comment refers to the desire to not call qcom_slim_ngd_exit_dma() while we have an ongoing DMA TX transaction. But any such transaction is initiated and completed within a single qcom_slim_ngd_xfer_msg(). Prior to calling qcom_slim_ngd_exit_dma() the slim_controller is torn down, all…

Ein Angreifer kann mehrere Schwachstellen im Linux Kernel ausnutzen, um einen nicht näher spezifizierten Angriff durchzuführen, darunter möglicherweise das Auslösen eines Denial-of-Service-Zustands, die Umgehung von Sicherheitsmaßnahmen oder das Verursachen von Speicherbeschädigungen.