Schwachstellen werden geladen…
Schwachstellen werden geladen…
CVE-2025-37964
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: x86/mm: Eliminate window where TLB flushes may be inadvertently skipped tl;dr: There is a window in the mm switching code where the new CR3 is set and the CPU should be getting TLB flushes for the new mm. But should_flush_tlb() has a bug and suppresses the flush. Fix it by widening the window where should_flush_tlb() sends an IPI. Long Version: === History === There were a few things leading up to this. First, updating mm_cpumask() was observed to be too expensive, so it was made lazier. But being lazy caused too many unnecessary IPIs to CPUs due to the now-lazy mm_cpumask(). So code was added to cull mm_cpumask() periodically[2]. But that culling was a bit too aggressive and skipped sending TLB flushes to CPUs that need them. So here we are again. === Problem === The too-aggressive code in should_flush_tlb() strikes in this window: // Turn on IPIs for this CPU/mm combination, but only // if should_flush_tlb() agrees: cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, mm_cpumask(next)); next_tlb_gen = atomic64_read(&next->context.tlb_gen); choose_new_asid(next, next_tlb_gen, &new_asid, &need_flush); load_new_mm_cr3(need_flush); // ^ After 'need_flush' is set to false, IPIs *MUST* // be sent to this CPU and not be ignored. this_cpu_write(cpu_tlbstate.loaded_mm, next); // ^ Not until this point does should_flush_tlb() // become true! should_flush_tlb() will suppress TLB flushes between load_new_mm_cr3() and writing to 'loaded_mm', which is a window where they should not be suppressed. Whoops. === Solution === Thankfully, the fuzzy "just about to write CR3" window is already marked with loaded_mm==LOADED_MM_SWITCHING. Simply checking for that state in should_flush_tlb() is sufficient to ensure that the CPU is targeted with an IPI. This will cause more TLB flush IPIs. But the window is relatively small and I do not expect this to cause any kind of measurable performance impact. Update the comment where LOADED_MM_SWITCHING is written since it grew yet another user. Peter Z also raised a concern that should_flush_tlb() might not observe 'loaded_mm' and 'is_lazy' in the same order that switch_mm_irqs_off() writes them. Add a barrier to ensure that they are observed in the order they are written.
Dieser Datensatz: Live-Anbindung— zuletzt abgerufen: 24. September 2026 um 05:09.
Direkt aus NVD, CISA oder vom Hersteller übernommen — teils auf Englisch, unverändert gegenüber der Quelle.
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: x86/mm: Eliminate window where TLB flushes may be inadvertently skipped tl;dr: There is a window in the mm switching code where the new CR3 is set and the CPU should be getting TLB flushes for the new mm. But should_flush_tlb() has a bug and suppresses the flush. Fix it by widening the window where should_flush_tlb() sends an IPI. Long Version: === History === There were a few things leading up to this. First, updating mm_cpumask() was observed to be too expensive, so it was made lazier. But being lazy caused too many unnecessary IPIs to CPUs due to the now-lazy mm_cpumask(). So code was added to cull mm_cpumask() periodically[2]. But that culling was a bit too aggressive and skipped sending TLB flushes to CPUs that need them. So here we are again. === Problem === The too-aggressive code in should_flush_tlb() strikes in this window: // Turn on IPIs for this CPU/mm combination, but only // if should_flush_tlb() agrees: cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, mm_cpumask(next)); next_tlb_gen = atomic64_read(&next->context.tlb_gen); choose_new_asid(next, next_tlb_gen, &new_asid, &need_flush); load_new_mm_cr3(need_flush); // ^ After 'need_flush' is set to false, IPIs *MUST* // be sent to this CPU and not be ignored. this_cpu_write(cpu_tlbstate.loaded_mm, next); // ^ Not until this point does should_flush_tlb() // become true! should_flush_tlb() will suppress TLB flushes between load_new_mm_cr3() and writing to 'loaded_mm', which is a window where they should not be suppressed. Whoops. === Solution === Thankfully, the fuzzy "just about to write CR3" window is already marked with loaded_mm==LOADED_MM_SWITCHING. Simply checking for that state in should_flush_tlb() is sufficient to ensure that the CPU is targeted with an IPI. This will cause more TLB flush IPIs. But the window is relatively small and I do not expect this to cause any kind of measurable performance impact. Update the comment where LOADED_MM_SWITCHING is written since it grew yet another user. Peter Z also raised a concern that should_flush_tlb() might not observe 'loaded_mm' and 'is_lazy' in the same order that switch_mm_irqs_off() writes them. Add a barrier to ensure that they are observed in the order they are written.
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Attack Vector
LOCAL
Privileges Required
LOW
User Interaction
NONE
Vertraulichkeit
Hoch
Integrität
Hoch
Verfügbarkeit
Hoch
Ausnutzungswahrscheinlichkeit innerhalb von 30 Tagen
0.2%
Perzentil
9e
Quelle: FIRST.org, aktualisiert am 23. September 2026.
Limit access to the interactive shell of the additional GNU/Linux subssytem to trusted personnel only.
Unsere eigene Einordnung und unser Kontext zu den obigen Quelldaten.
IACS-Radar-Einordnung
Unsere eigene Einordnung und unser Kontext zu dieser Schwachstelle — keine offizielle Quelle.
IACS-Radar-Prioritätswert
Basierend auf CVSS 7.8, EPSS 0.2%, industrielle Relevanz 55/100.
Kombiniert CVSS, EPSS, KEV-Status, industrielle Relevanz und Expositionsrelevanz — eine Ergänzung, kein Ersatz für die einzelnen Werte darunter und darüber.
Voraussetzungen für eine Ausnutzung
Operative Auswirkungen & Energierelevanz
Möglicher Verlust der Sicht auf oder der Kontrolle über den Prozess bei erfolgreicher Ausnutzung.
Als relevant für den Energiesektor eingestuft aufgrund von: Vermeld in een officiële CISA ICS Advisory, wat directe relevantie voor industriële besturingssystemen bevestigt. Der Hersteller „Siemens“ ist ein bekannter Lieferant von Ausrüstung für den Energiesektor.
Empfohlene defensive Maßnahmen
Industrieller Relevanzwert
Die Einstufung ist vorläufig; eine manuelle Überprüfung durch einen OT-Security-Analysten wird empfohlen.
Klassifiziert von IACS Radar-analysepijplijn (geautomatiseerd) am 24. September 2026.
IEC-62443-Zuordnung
Automatische IACS-Radar-Einordnung anhand der gemeldeten CWE-Schwächeklassifizierung; keine offizielle Zertifizierungsaussage.