CVE-2022-50118 — linux / linux_kernel
Uncontrolled RecursionIn the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
powerpc/perf: Optimize clearing the pending PMI and remove WARN_ON for PMI check in power_pmu_disable
commit 2c9ac51b850d ("powerpc/perf: Fix PMU callbacks to clear pending PMI before resetting an overflown PMC") added a new function "pmi_irq_pending" in hw_irq.h. This function is to check if there is a PMI marked as pending in Paca (PACA_IRQ_PMI).This is used in power_pmu_disable in a WARN_ON. The intention here is to provide a warning if there is PMI pending, but no counter is found overflown.
During some of the perf runs, below warning is hit:
WARNING: CPU: 36 PID: 0 at arch/powerpc/perf/core-book3s.c:1332 power_pmu_disable+0x25c/0x2c0 Modules linked in:
NIP [c000000000141c3c] power_pmu_disable+0x25c/0x2c0 LR [c000000000141c8c] power_pmu_disable+0x2ac/0x2c0 Call Trace: [c000000baffcfb90] [c000000000141c8c] power_pmu_disable+0x2ac/0x2c0 (unreliable) [c000000baffcfc10] [c0000000003e2f8c] perf_pmu_disable+0x4c/0x60 [c000000baffcfc30] [c0000000003e3344] group_sched_out.part.124+0x44/0x100 [c000000baffcfc80] [c0000000003e353c] __perf_event_disable+0x13c/0x240 [c000000baffcfcd0] [c0000000003dd334] event_function+0xc4/0x140 [c000000baffcfd20] [c0000000003d855c] remote_function+0x7c/0xa0 [c000000baffcfd50] [c00000000026c394] flush_smp_call_function_queue+0xd4/0x300 [c000000baffcfde0] [c000000000065b24] smp_ipi_demux_relaxed+0xa4/0x100 [c000000baffcfe20] [c0000000000cb2b0] xive_muxed_ipi_action+0x20/0x40 [c000000baffcfe40] [c000000000207c3c] __handle_irq_event_percpu+0x8c/0x250 [c000000baffcfee0] [c000000000207e2c] handle_irq_event_percpu+0x2c/0xa0 [c000000baffcff10] [c000000000210a04] handle_percpu_irq+0x84/0xc0 [c000000baffcff40] [c000000000205f14] generic_handle_irq+0x54/0x80 [c000000baffcff60] [c000000000015740] __do_irq+0x90/0x1d0 [c000000baffcff90] [c000000000016990] __do_IRQ+0xc0/0x140 [c0000009732f3940] [c000000bafceaca8] 0xc000000bafceaca8 [c0000009732f39d0] [c000000000016b78] do_IRQ+0x168/0x1c0 [c0000009732f3a00] [c0000000000090c8] hardware_interrupt_common_virt+0x218/0x220
This means that there is no PMC overflown among the active events in the PMU, but there is a PMU pending in Paca. The function "any_pmc_overflown" checks the PMCs on active events in cpuhw->n_events. Code snippet:
<<>> if (any_pmc_overflown(cpuhw)) clear_pmi_irq_pending(); else WARN_ON(pmi_irq_pending()); <<>>
Here the PMC overflown is not from active event. Example: When we do perf record, default cycles and instructions will be running on PMC6 and PMC5 respectively. It could happen that overflowed event is currently not active and pending PMI is for the inactive event. Debug logs from trace_printk:
<<>> any_pmc_overflown: idx is 5: pmc value is 0xd9a power_pmu_disable: PMC1: 0x0, PMC2: 0x0, PMC3: 0x0, PMC4: 0x0, PMC5: 0xd9a, PMC6: 0x80002011 <<>>
Here active PMC (from idx) is PMC5 , but overflown PMC is PMC6(0x80002011). When we handle PMI interrupt for such cases, if the PMC overflown is from inactive event, it will be ignored. Reference commit: commit bc09c219b2e6 ("powerpc/perf: Fix finding overflowed PMC in interrupt")
Patch addresses two changes:
-
Fix 1 : Removal of warning ( WARN_ON(pmi_irq_pending()); ) We were printing warning if no PMC is found overflown among active PMU events, but PMI pending in PACA. But this could happen in cases where PMC overflown is not in active PMC. An inactive event could have caused the overflow. Hence the warning is not needed. To know pending PMI is from an inactive event, we need to loop through all PMC's which will cause more SPR reads via mfspr and increase in context switch. Also in existing function: perf_event_interrupt, already we ignore PMI's overflown when it is from an inactive PMC.
-
Fix 2: optimization in clearing pending PMI. Currently we check for any active PMC overflown before clearing PMI pending in Paca. This is causing additional SP ---truncated---
| Software | From | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| linux / linux_kernel | 5.10.94 | 5.10.137 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 5.15.17 | 5.15.61 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 5.16.3 | 5.18.18 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 5.19 | 5.19.2 |
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/0a24ea26c3278216642a43291df7976a73a0a7ee
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/7e83af3dd4a3afca8f83ffde518cafd52f45b830
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/875b2bf469d094754ac2ba9af91dcd529eb12bf6
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/87b1a9175f08313f40fcb6d6dc536dbe451090eb
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/890005a7d98f7452cfe86dcfb2aeeb7df01132ce
Deep Security Visibility Without the Complexity
SynScan provides clear, real-time security insights so you can monitor your attack surface, spot risks early, and act fast—without extra complexity.
- No setup fees
- 5-min deployment
- Cancel anytime
Frequently Asked Questions
A security vulnerability is a weakness in software, hardware, or configuration that can be exploited to compromise confidentiality, integrity, or availability. Many vulnerabilities are tracked as CVEs (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures), which provide a standardized identifier so teams can coordinate patching, mitigation, and risk assessment across tools and vendors.
CVSS (Common Vulnerability Scoring System) estimates technical severity, but it doesn't automatically equal business risk. Prioritize using context like internet exposure, affected asset criticality, known exploitation (proof-of-concept or in-the-wild), and whether compensating controls exist. A "Medium" CVSS on an exposed, production system can be more urgent than a "Critical" on an isolated, non-production host.
A vulnerability is the underlying weakness. An exploit is the method or code used to take advantage of it. A zero-day is a vulnerability that is unknown to the vendor or has no publicly available fix when attackers begin using it. In practice, risk increases sharply when exploitation becomes reliable or widespread.
Recurring findings usually come from incomplete Asset Discovery, inconsistent patch management, inherited images, and configuration drift. In modern environments, you also need to watch the software supply chain: dependencies, containers, build pipelines, and third-party services can reintroduce the same weakness even after you patch a single host. Unknown or unmanaged assets (often called Shadow IT) are a common reason the same issues resurface.
Use a simple, repeatable triage model: focus first on externally exposed assets, high-value systems (identity, VPN, email, production), vulnerabilities with known exploits, and issues that enable remote code execution or privilege escalation. Then enforce patch SLAs and track progress using consistent metrics so remediation is steady, not reactive.
SynScan combines attack surface monitoring and continuous security auditing to keep your inventory current, flag high-impact vulnerabilities early, and help you turn raw findings into a practical remediation plan.