CVE-2012-6030
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedThe do_tmem_op function in the Transcendent Memory (TMEM) in Xen 4.0, 4.1, and 4.2 allow local guest OS users to cause a denial of service (host crash) and possibly have other unspecified impacts via unspecified vectors related to "broken locking checks" in an "error path." NOTE: this issue was originally published as part of CVE-2012-3497, which was too general; CVE-2012-3497 has been SPLIT into this ID and others.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · moderate confidenceLocal guest OS users can cause a denial of service (host crash) via the Transcendent Memory (TMEM) subsystem in Xen 4.0-4.2. The vulnerability exists in the do_tmem_op function where broken locking checks in an error path allow guests to trigger a host crash.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data= 4.0.0= 4.1.0= 4.2.0CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:L/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify Xen versionRun 'xl version' or 'xm version' to display the Xen hypervisor version, or check 'uname -a' for kernel version infoAffected if The version displayed is 4.0.0, 4.1.0, or 4.2.0
-
Verify TMEM subsystem availabilityCheck if TMEM is enabled in the hypervisor by examining boot parameters or xl/xm config files for 'tmem' settings, or run 'xl info' to see tmem-related hypervisor capabilitiesAffected if TMEM (Transcendent Memory) is enabled or available in the hypervisor configuration
-
Check guest VM configurationReview VM configuration files in /etc/xen/ or /etc/xen/vm/ for 'tmem' or 'transcendent_memory' parameters that grant guests access to TMEMAffected if Untrusted guest VMs are configured with TMEM capability enabled
A system is affected if it runs Xen 4.0.0, 4.1.0, or 4.2.0 and has the TMEM subsystem enabled and exposed to guest VMs, allowing a malicious guest to trigger the locking check flaw in do_tmem_op and crash the host.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataApply Xen security patches for CVE-2012-6030 or upgrade to a patched Xen version. If immediate patching is not feasible, consider restricting or disabling TMEM functionality for untrusted guests.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $7,808.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2012-6030 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2012-6030 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data