CVE-2021-29550

Division by 0 in `FractionalAvgPool`

MEDIUM
5.5
CVSS Score
Published: May 14, 2021 at 07:10 PM UTC
Updated: June 17, 2026 at 03:47 AM UTC
2 products affected across 2 vendorsTensorflowTensorFlow

Using tensorflow by tensorflow?

Get instant alerts when new vulnerabilities affect tensorflow - before attackers find them.

Real-time alertsTrack your software stackFree plan available
Severity
MEDIUM5.5
Exploit prediction
EPSS 0.2%

Description

TensorFlow is an end-to-end open source platform for machine learning. An attacker can cause a runtime division by zero error and denial of service in `tf.raw_ops.FractionalAvgPool`. This is because the implementation(https://github.com/tensorflow/tensorflow/blob/acc8ee69f5f46f92a3f1f11230f49c6ac266f10c/tensorflow/core/kernels/fractional_avg_pool_op.cc#L85-L89) computes a divisor quantity by dividing two user controlled values. The user controls the values of `input_size[i]` and `pooling_ratio_[i]` (via the `value.shape()` and `pooling_ratio` arguments). If the value in `input_size[i]` is smaller than the `pooling_ratio_[i]`, then the floor operation results in `output_size[i]` being 0. The `DCHECK_GT` line is a no-op outside of debug mode, so in released versions of TF this does not trigger. Later, these computed values are used as arguments(https://github.com/tensorflow/tensorflow/blob/acc8ee69f5f46f92a3f1f11230f49c6ac266f10c/tensorflow/core/kernels/fractional_avg_pool_op.cc#L96-L99) to `GeneratePoolingSequence`(https://github.com/tensorflow/tensorflow/blob/acc8ee69f5f46f92a3f1f11230f49c6ac266f10c/tensorflow/core/kernels/fractional_pool_common.cc#L100-L108). There, the first computation is a division in a modulo operation. Since `output_length` can be 0, this results in runtime crashing. The fix will be included in TensorFlow 2.5.0. We will also cherrypick this commit on TensorFlow 2.4.2, TensorFlow 2.3.3, TensorFlow 2.2.3 and TensorFlow 2.1.4, as these are also affected and still in supported range.

Affected

Our own answer: ranges merged, affected separated from platform-only, with confidence and review flags.

v < 2.1.42.2.0 ≤ v < 2.2.32.3.0 ≤ v < 2.3.32.4.0 ≤ v < 2.4.2
Affected range stops below 2.1.4, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
Affected range stops below 2.2.3, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
Affected range stops below 2.3.3, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
Affected range stops below 2.4.2, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
v < 2.1.4v < 2.2.3v < 2.3.3v < 2.4.2
Affected range stops below 2.1.4, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
Affected range stops below 2.2.3, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
Affected range stops below 2.3.3, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement
Affected range stops below 2.4.2, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement

Remediation

No guide yet

No remediation guidance has been written for this CVE yet. What the record does show:

CVSS

Attack Vector
LOCAL
Complexity
LOW
Privileges
LOW
User Interaction
NONE
Scope
UNCHANGED
Confidentiality
NONE
Integrity
NONE
Availability
HIGH
Vector?

Quick Info

StatusMODIFIED
CWE
CWE-369

Get alerted

Stop reading CVE feeds looking for your own stack

Track the products you run and VulnTracker tells you when a new CVE affects them — with what is known about fixing it, and nothing about the rest.

Free plan, no card