In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
mtd: core: Fix refcount error in del_mtd_device()
del_mtd_device() will call of_node_put() to mtd_get_of_node(mtd), which
is mtd->dev.of_node. However, memset(&mtd->dev, 0) is called before
of_node_put(). As the result, of_node_put() won't do anything in
del_mtd_device(), and causes the refcount leak.
del_mtd_device()
memset(&mtd->dev, 0, sizeof(mtd->dev) # clear mtd->dev
of_node_put()
mtd_get_of_node(mtd) # mtd->dev is cleared, can't locate of_node
# of_node_put(NULL) won't do anything
Fix the error by caching the pointer of the device_node.
OF: ERROR: memory leak, expected refcount 1 instead of 2,
of_node_get()/of_node_put() unbalanced - destroy cset entry: attach
overlay node /spi/spi-sram@0
CPU: 3 PID: 275 Comm: python3 Tainted: G N 6.1.0-rc3+ #54
0d8a1edddf51f172ff5226989a7565c6313b08e2
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS
rel-1.15.0-0-g2dd4b9b3f840-prebuilt.qemu.org 04/01/2014
Call Trace:
dump_stack_lvl+0x67/0x83
kobject_get+0x155/0x160
of_node_get+0x1f/0x30
of_fwnode_get+0x43/0x70
fwnode_handle_get+0x54/0x80
fwnode_get_nth_parent+0xc9/0xe0
fwnode_full_name_string+0x3f/0xa0
device_node_string+0x30f/0x750
pointer+0x598/0x7a0
vsnprintf+0x62d/0x9b0
...
cfs_overlay_release+0x30/0x90
config_item_release+0xbe/0x1a0
config_item_put+0x5e/0x80
configfs_rmdir+0x3bd/0x540
vfs_rmdir+0x18c/0x320
do_rmdir+0x198/0x330
__x64_sys_rmdir+0x2c/0x40
do_syscall_64+0x37/0x90
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd
[: Light reword of the commit log]
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (5.5): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 5.5 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 5.5 MEDIUMCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.2% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS. FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
- Confirmed exploitation
- None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
- EG Priority
- SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from Vulnrichment. EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table
BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). Where an input reads “CISA's BOD 26-04 default”, no one has published it for this CVE, and CISA's implementation guidance says: “If “Automatable” and “Technical Impact” information items about a CVE ID are not available and the CVE ID is not in the KEV Catalog, CISA will treat its values as “no” and “total,” respectively, until CISA or a third party provides metadata about the CVE ID. CISA will always provide the Vulnrichment data for a CVE ID listed in the KEV Catalog.” Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it