This CVE ID has been rejected or withdrawn by its CVE Numbering Authority.
Metrics
Affected Vendors & Products
No data.
No data.
No data.
No data.
Advisories
| Source | ID | Title |
|---|---|---|
 EUVD |
EUVD-2025-13174 | In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: bpf: Adjust insufficient default bpf_jit_limit We've seen recent AWS EKS (Kubernetes) user reports like the following: After upgrading EKS nodes from v20230203 to v20230217 on our 1.24 EKS clusters after a few days a number of the nodes have containers stuck in ContainerCreating state or liveness/readiness probes reporting the following error: Readiness probe errored: rpc error: code = Unknown desc = failed to exec in container: failed to start exec "4a11039f730203ffc003b7[...]": OCI runtime exec failed: exec failed: unable to start container process: unable to init seccomp: error loading seccomp filter into kernel: error loading seccomp filter: errno 524: unknown However, we had not been seeing this issue on previous AMIs and it only started to occur on v20230217 (following the upgrade from kernel 5.4 to 5.10) with no other changes to the underlying cluster or workloads. We tried the suggestions from that issue (sysctl net.core.bpf_jit_limit=452534528) which helped to immediately allow containers to be created and probes to execute but after approximately a day the issue returned and the value returned by cat /proc/vmallocinfo | grep bpf_jit | awk '{s+=$2} END {print s}' was steadily increasing. I tested bpf tree to observe bpf_jit_charge_modmem, bpf_jit_uncharge_modmem their sizes passed in as well as bpf_jit_current under tcpdump BPF filter, seccomp BPF and native (e)BPF programs, and the behavior all looks sane and expected, that is nothing "leaking" from an upstream perspective. The bpf_jit_limit knob was originally added in order to avoid a situation where unprivileged applications loading BPF programs (e.g. seccomp BPF policies) consuming all the module memory space via BPF JIT such that loading of kernel modules would be prevented. The default limit was defined back in 2018 and while good enough back then, we are generally seeing far more BPF consumers today. Adjust the limit for the BPF JIT pool from originally 1/4 to now 1/2 of the module memory space to better reflect today's needs and avoid more users running into potentially hard to debug issues. |
Fixes
Solution
No solution given by the vendor.
Workaround
No workaround given by the vendor.
References
History
Mon, 05 May 2025 15:45:00 +0000
Mon, 05 May 2025 15:00:00 +0000
| Type | Values Removed | Values Added |
|---|---|---|
| Description | In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: bpf: Adjust insufficient default bpf_jit_limit We've seen recent AWS EKS (Kubernetes) user reports like the following: After upgrading EKS nodes from v20230203 to v20230217 on our 1.24 EKS clusters after a few days a number of the nodes have containers stuck in ContainerCreating state or liveness/readiness probes reporting the following error: Readiness probe errored: rpc error: code = Unknown desc = failed to exec in container: failed to start exec "4a11039f730203ffc003b7[...]": OCI runtime exec failed: exec failed: unable to start container process: unable to init seccomp: error loading seccomp filter into kernel: error loading seccomp filter: errno 524: unknown However, we had not been seeing this issue on previous AMIs and it only started to occur on v20230217 (following the upgrade from kernel 5.4 to 5.10) with no other changes to the underlying cluster or workloads. We tried the suggestions from that issue (sysctl net.core.bpf_jit_limit=452534528) which helped to immediately allow containers to be created and probes to execute but after approximately a day the issue returned and the value returned by cat /proc/vmallocinfo | grep bpf_jit | awk '{s+=$2} END {print s}' was steadily increasing. I tested bpf tree to observe bpf_jit_charge_modmem, bpf_jit_uncharge_modmem their sizes passed in as well as bpf_jit_current under tcpdump BPF filter, seccomp BPF and native (e)BPF programs, and the behavior all looks sane and expected, that is nothing "leaking" from an upstream perspective. The bpf_jit_limit knob was originally added in order to avoid a situation where unprivileged applications loading BPF programs (e.g. seccomp BPF policies) consuming all the module memory space via BPF JIT such that loading of kernel modules would be prevented. The default limit was defined back in 2018 and while good enough back then, we are generally seeing far more BPF consumers today. Adjust the limit for the BPF JIT pool from originally 1/4 to now 1/2 of the module memory space to better reflect today's needs and avoid more users running into potentially hard to debug issues. | This CVE ID has been rejected or withdrawn by its CVE Numbering Authority. |
| Title | bpf: Adjust insufficient default bpf_jit_limit | kernel: bpf: Adjust insufficient default bpf_jit_limit |
Mon, 05 May 2025 14:00:00 +0000
| Type | Values Removed | Values Added |
|---|---|---|
| References |
| |
| Metrics |
threat_severity
|
cvssV3_1
|
Fri, 02 May 2025 16:00:00 +0000
| Type | Values Removed | Values Added |
|---|---|---|
| Description | In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: bpf: Adjust insufficient default bpf_jit_limit We've seen recent AWS EKS (Kubernetes) user reports like the following: After upgrading EKS nodes from v20230203 to v20230217 on our 1.24 EKS clusters after a few days a number of the nodes have containers stuck in ContainerCreating state or liveness/readiness probes reporting the following error: Readiness probe errored: rpc error: code = Unknown desc = failed to exec in container: failed to start exec "4a11039f730203ffc003b7[...]": OCI runtime exec failed: exec failed: unable to start container process: unable to init seccomp: error loading seccomp filter into kernel: error loading seccomp filter: errno 524: unknown However, we had not been seeing this issue on previous AMIs and it only started to occur on v20230217 (following the upgrade from kernel 5.4 to 5.10) with no other changes to the underlying cluster or workloads. We tried the suggestions from that issue (sysctl net.core.bpf_jit_limit=452534528) which helped to immediately allow containers to be created and probes to execute but after approximately a day the issue returned and the value returned by cat /proc/vmallocinfo | grep bpf_jit | awk '{s+=$2} END {print s}' was steadily increasing. I tested bpf tree to observe bpf_jit_charge_modmem, bpf_jit_uncharge_modmem their sizes passed in as well as bpf_jit_current under tcpdump BPF filter, seccomp BPF and native (e)BPF programs, and the behavior all looks sane and expected, that is nothing "leaking" from an upstream perspective. The bpf_jit_limit knob was originally added in order to avoid a situation where unprivileged applications loading BPF programs (e.g. seccomp BPF policies) consuming all the module memory space via BPF JIT such that loading of kernel modules would be prevented. The default limit was defined back in 2018 and while good enough back then, we are generally seeing far more BPF consumers today. Adjust the limit for the BPF JIT pool from originally 1/4 to now 1/2 of the module memory space to better reflect today's needs and avoid more users running into potentially hard to debug issues. | |
| Title | bpf: Adjust insufficient default bpf_jit_limit | |
| References |
|
|
Projects
Sign in to view the affected projects.
MITRE
Status: REJECTED
Assigner: Linux
Published:
Updated: 2025-05-05T14:45:06.828Z
Reserved: 2025-05-02T15:51:43.549Z
Link: CVE-2023-53076
Vulnrichment
No data.
NVD
Status : Rejected
Published: 2025-05-02T16:15:26.610
Modified: 2025-05-05T15:15:53.393
Link: CVE-2023-53076
Redhat
OpenCVE Enrichment
No data.
Weaknesses
No weakness.