CVE-2025-21866

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

powerpc/code-patching: Fix KASAN hit by not flagging text patching area as VM_ALLOC

Erhard reported the following KASAN hit while booting his PowerMac G4 with a KASAN-enabled kernel 6.13-rc6:

BUG: KASAN: vmalloc-out-of-bounds in copy_to_kernel_nofault+0xd8/0x1c8 Write of size 8 at addr f1000000 by task chronyd/1293

CPU: 0 UID: 123 PID: 1293 Comm: chronyd Tainted: G W 6.13.0-rc6-PMacG4 #2 Tainted: [W]=WARN Hardware name: PowerMac3,6 7455 0x80010303 PowerMac Call Trace: [c2437590] [c1631a84] dump_stack_lvl+0x70/0x8c (unreliable) [c24375b0] [c0504998] print_report+0xdc/0x504 [c2437610] [c050475c] kasan_report+0xf8/0x108 [c2437690] [c0505a3c] kasan_check_range+0x24/0x18c [c24376a0] [c03fb5e4] copy_to_kernel_nofault+0xd8/0x1c8 [c24376c0] [c004c014] patch_instructions+0x15c/0x16c [c2437710] [c00731a8] bpf_arch_text_copy+0x60/0x7c [c2437730] [c0281168] bpf_jit_binary_pack_finalize+0x50/0xac [c2437750] [c0073cf4] bpf_int_jit_compile+0xb30/0xdec [c2437880] [c0280394] bpf_prog_select_runtime+0x15c/0x478 [c24378d0] [c1263428] bpf_prepare_filter+0xbf8/0xc14 [c2437990] [c12677ec] bpf_prog_create_from_user+0x258/0x2b4 [c24379d0] [c027111c] do_seccomp+0x3dc/0x1890 [c2437ac0] [c001d8e0] system_call_exception+0x2dc/0x420 [c2437f30] [c00281ac] ret_from_syscall+0x0/0x2c — interrupt: c00 at 0x5a1274 NIP: 005a1274 LR: 006a3b3c CTR: 005296c8 REGS: c2437f40 TRAP: 0c00 Tainted: G W (6.13.0-rc6-PMacG4) MSR: 0200f932 <VEC,EE,PR,FP,ME,IR,DR,RI> CR: 24004422 XER: 00000000

GPR00: 00000166 af8f3fa0 a7ee3540 00000001 00000000 013b6500 005a5858 0200f932 GPR08: 00000000 00001fe9 013d5fc8 005296c8 2822244c 00b2fcd8 00000000 af8f4b57 GPR16: 00000000 00000001 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000001 00000000 00000002 GPR24: 00afdbb0 00000000 00000000 00000000 006e0004 013ce060 006e7c1c 00000001 NIP [005a1274] 0x5a1274 LR [006a3b3c] 0x6a3b3c — interrupt: c00

The buggy address belongs to the virtual mapping at [f1000000, f1002000) created by: text_area_cpu_up+0x20/0x190

The buggy address belongs to the physical page: page: refcount:1 mapcount:0 mapping:00000000 index:0x0 pfn:0x76e30 flags: 0x80000000(zone=2) raw: 80000000 00000000 00000122 00000000 00000000 00000000 ffffffff 00000001 raw: 00000000 page dumped because: kasan: bad access detected

Memory state around the buggy address: f0ffff00: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 f0ffff80: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00

f1000000: f8 f8 f8 f8 f8 f8 f8 f8 f8 f8 f8 f8 f8 f8 f8 f8 ^ f1000080: f8 f8 f8 f8 f8 f8 f8 f8 f8 f8 f8 f8 f8 f8 f8 f8 f1000100: f8 f8 f8 f8 f8 f8 f8 f8 f8 f8 f8 f8 f8 f8 f8 f8 ==================================================================

f8 corresponds to KASAN_VMALLOC_INVALID which means the area is not initialised hence not supposed to be used yet.

Powerpc text patching infrastructure allocates a virtual memory area using get_vm_area() and flags it as VM_ALLOC. But that flag is meant to be used for vmalloc() and vmalloc() allocated memory is not supposed to be used before a call to __vmalloc_node_range() which is never called for that area.

That went undetected until commit e4137f08816b (mm, kasan, kmsan: instrument copy_from/to_kernel_nofault)

The area allocated by text_area_cpu_up() is not vmalloc memory, it is mapped directly on demand when needed by map_kernel_page(). There is no VM flag corresponding to such usage, so just pass no flag. That way the area will be unpoisonned and usable immediately.

Weakness

The product allocates a reusable resource or group of resources on behalf of an actor without imposing any restrictions on the size or number of resources that can be allocated, in violation of the intended security policy for that actor.

Affected Software

Extended Description

Code frequently has to work with limited resources, so programmers must be careful to ensure that resources are not consumed too quickly, or too easily. Without use of quotas, resource limits, or other protection mechanisms, it can be easy for an attacker to consume many resources by rapidly making many requests, or causing larger resources to be used than is needed. When too many resources are allocated, or if a single resource is too large, then it can prevent the code from working correctly, possibly leading to a denial of service.

Potential Mitigations

• Assume all input is malicious. Use an “accept known good” input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.

• When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, “boat” may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as “red” or “blue.”

• Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code’s environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.

• 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 can be difficult to effectively institute – and even when properly done, it does not provide a full solution. It simply requires more resources on the part of the attacker.

• If the program must fail, ensure that it fails gracefully (fails closed). There may be a temptation to simply let the program fail poorly in cases such as low memory conditions, but an attacker may be able to assert control before the software has fully exited. Alternately, an uncontrolled failure could cause cascading problems with other downstream components; for example, the program could send a signal to a downstream process so the process immediately knows that a problem has occurred and has a better chance of recovery.

• Ensure that all failures in resource allocation place the system into a safe posture.

• Use resource-limiting settings provided by the operating system or environment. For example, when managing system resources in POSIX, setrlimit() can be used to set limits for certain types of resources, and getrlimit() can determine how many resources are available. However, these functions are not available on all operating systems.

• When the current levels get close to the maximum that is defined for the application (see CWE-770), then limit the allocation of further resources to privileged users; alternately, begin releasing resources for less-privileged users. While this mitigation may protect the system from attack, it will not necessarily stop attackers from adversely impacting other users.

• Ensure that the application performs the appropriate error checks and error handling in case resources become unavailable (CWE-703).

Related Attack Patterns

• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/125.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/130.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/147.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/197.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/229.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/230.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/231.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/469.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/482.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/486.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/487.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/488.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/489.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/490.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/491.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/493.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/494.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/495.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/496.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/528.html

References

• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/2d542f13d26344e3452eee77613026ce9b653065
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/2e6c80423f201405fd65254e52decd21663896f3
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/6847b3e40bb963e57b61d1cc6fe84cb37b9d3d4c
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/8d06e9208184b2851fa79a3a39d6860320c8bdf8
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/97de5852058a299ba447cd9782fe96488d30108b
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/c905a3053518212a1017e50bd2be3bee59305bb0
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/d262a192d38e527faa5984629aabda2e0d1c4f54
• https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/f8d4c5b653c1bc0df56e15658bbf64fc359adc4e