fkie_cve-2025-38434
Vulnerability from fkie_nvd
Published
2025-07-25 15:15
Modified
2025-07-25 15:29
Severity ?
Summary
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: Revert "riscv: Define TASK_SIZE_MAX for __access_ok()" This reverts commit ad5643cf2f69 ("riscv: Define TASK_SIZE_MAX for __access_ok()"). This commit changes TASK_SIZE_MAX to be LONG_MAX to optimize access_ok(), because the previous TASK_SIZE_MAX (default to TASK_SIZE) requires some computation. The reasoning was that all user addresses are less than LONG_MAX, and all kernel addresses are greater than LONG_MAX. Therefore access_ok() can filter kernel addresses. Addresses between TASK_SIZE and LONG_MAX are not valid user addresses, but access_ok() let them pass. That was thought to be okay, because they are not valid addresses at hardware level. Unfortunately, one case is missed: get_user_pages_fast() happily accepts addresses between TASK_SIZE and LONG_MAX. futex(), for instance, uses get_user_pages_fast(). This causes the problem reported by Robert [1]. Therefore, revert this commit. TASK_SIZE_MAX is changed to the default: TASK_SIZE. This unfortunately reduces performance, because TASK_SIZE is more expensive to compute compared to LONG_MAX. But correctness first, we can think about optimization later, if required.
Impacted products
Vendor Product Version



{
  "cveTags": [],
  "descriptions": [
    {
      "lang": "en",
      "value": "In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:\n\nRevert \"riscv: Define TASK_SIZE_MAX for __access_ok()\"\n\nThis reverts commit ad5643cf2f69 (\"riscv: Define TASK_SIZE_MAX for\n__access_ok()\").\n\nThis commit changes TASK_SIZE_MAX to be LONG_MAX to optimize access_ok(),\nbecause the previous TASK_SIZE_MAX (default to TASK_SIZE) requires some\ncomputation.\n\nThe reasoning was that all user addresses are less than LONG_MAX, and all\nkernel addresses are greater than LONG_MAX. Therefore access_ok() can\nfilter kernel addresses.\n\nAddresses between TASK_SIZE and LONG_MAX are not valid user addresses, but\naccess_ok() let them pass. That was thought to be okay, because they are\nnot valid addresses at hardware level.\n\nUnfortunately, one case is missed: get_user_pages_fast() happily accepts\naddresses between TASK_SIZE and LONG_MAX. futex(), for instance, uses\nget_user_pages_fast(). This causes the problem reported by Robert [1].\n\nTherefore, revert this commit. TASK_SIZE_MAX is changed to the default:\nTASK_SIZE.\n\nThis unfortunately reduces performance, because TASK_SIZE is more expensive\nto compute compared to LONG_MAX. But correctness first, we can think about\noptimization later, if required."
    },
    {
      "lang": "es",
      "value": "En el kernel de Linux, se ha resuelto la siguiente vulnerabilidad: Revertir \"riscv: Define TASK_SIZE_MAX for __access_ok()\". Esto revierte el commit ad5643cf2f69 (\"riscv: Define TASK_SIZE_MAX for __access_ok()\"). Este commit cambia TASK_SIZE_MAX a LONG_MAX para optimizar access_ok(), ya que el valor predeterminado de TASK_SIZE_MAX (predeterminado) requiere c\u00e1lculos. El razonamiento era que todas las direcciones de usuario son menores que LONG_MAX y todas las direcciones de kernel son mayores que LONG_MAX. Por lo tanto, access_ok() puede filtrar direcciones de kernel. Las direcciones entre TASK_SIZE y LONG_MAX no son direcciones de usuario v\u00e1lidas, pero access_ok() las deja pasar. Se consider\u00f3 que esto era correcto, ya que no son direcciones v\u00e1lidas a nivel de hardware. Desafortunadamente, se omite un caso: get_user_pages_fast() acepta direcciones entre TASK_SIZE y LONG_MAX. futex(), por ejemplo, usa get_user_pages_fast(). Esto causa el problema reportado por Robert [1]. Por lo tanto, revierte este commit . TASK_SIZE_MAX se cambia al valor predeterminado: TASK_SIZE. Lamentablemente, esto reduce el rendimiento, ya que TASK_SIZE es m\u00e1s costoso de calcular que LONG_MAX. Pero primero la correcci\u00f3n; podemos pensar en la optimizaci\u00f3n m\u00e1s adelante, si es necesario."
    }
  ],
  "id": "CVE-2025-38434",
  "lastModified": "2025-07-25T15:29:19.837",
  "metrics": {},
  "published": "2025-07-25T15:15:28.707",
  "references": [
    {
      "source": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/890ba5be6335dbbbc99af14ea007befb5f83f174"
    },
    {
      "source": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/f8b1898748dfeb4f9b67b6a6d661f354b9de3523"
    },
    {
      "source": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/fe30c30bf3bb68d4a4d8c7c814769857b5c973e6"
    }
  ],
  "sourceIdentifier": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
  "vulnStatus": "Awaiting Analysis"
}


Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.


Loading…

Loading…

Loading…

Sightings

Author Source Type Date

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or seen somewhere by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability is confirmed from an analyst perspective.
  • Exploited: This vulnerability was exploited and seen by the user reporting the sighting.
  • Patched: This vulnerability was successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.
  • Not exploited: This vulnerability was not exploited or seen by the user reporting the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expresses doubt about the veracity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: This vulnerability was not successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.


Loading…

Loading…