CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2011-1082

Uncontrolled Resource Consumption

Published: Apr 04, 2011 | Modified: Apr 11, 2025
CVSS 3.x
N/A
Source:
NVD
CVSS 2.x
4.9 MEDIUM
AV:L/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/A:C
RedHat/V2
4.9 MODERATE
AV:L/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/A:C
RedHat/V3
Ubuntu
LOW

fs/eventpoll.c in the Linux kernel before 2.6.38 places epoll file descriptors within other epoll data structures without properly checking for (1) closed loops or (2) deep chains, which allows local users to cause a denial of service (deadlock or stack memory consumption) via a crafted application that makes epoll_create and epoll_ctl system calls.

Weakness

The product does not properly control the allocation and maintenance of a limited resource.

Affected Software

Name Vendor Start Version End Version
Linux_kernel Linux * 2.6.38 (excluding)
MRG for RHEL-5 RedHat kernel-rt-0:2.6.33.9-rt31.64.el5rt *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 RedHat kernel-0:2.6.32-131.0.15.el6 *
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.0 EUS - Server Only RedHat kernel-0:2.6.32-71.31.1.el6 *
Linux Ubuntu hardy *
Linux Ubuntu karmic *
Linux Ubuntu lucid *
Linux Ubuntu maverick *
Linux Ubuntu natty *
Linux Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-armadaxp Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-ec2 Ubuntu karmic *
Linux-ec2 Ubuntu lucid *
Linux-ec2 Ubuntu maverick *
Linux-ec2 Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-fsl-imx51 Ubuntu karmic *
Linux-fsl-imx51 Ubuntu lucid *
Linux-fsl-imx51 Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-lts-backport-maverick Ubuntu lucid *
Linux-lts-backport-maverick Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-lts-backport-natty Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-lts-backport-oneiric Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-lts-quantal Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-lts-raring Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-mvl-dove Ubuntu karmic *
Linux-mvl-dove Ubuntu lucid *
Linux-mvl-dove Ubuntu maverick *
Linux-mvl-dove Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-source-2.6.15 Ubuntu dapper *
Linux-source-2.6.15 Ubuntu upstream *
Linux-ti-omap4 Ubuntu maverick *
Linux-ti-omap4 Ubuntu natty *
Linux-ti-omap4 Ubuntu upstream *

Potential Mitigations

  • Mitigation of resource exhaustion attacks requires that the target system either:

  • The first of these solutions is an issue in itself though, since it may allow attackers to prevent the use of the system by a particular valid user. If the attacker impersonates the valid user, they may be able to prevent the user from accessing the server in question.

  • The second solution is simply difficult to effectively institute – and even when properly done, it does not provide a full solution. It simply makes the attack require more resources on the part of the attacker.

References