In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
bpf: copy_verifier_state() should copy 'loop_entry' field
The bpf_verifier_state.loop_entry state should be copied by
copy_verifier_state(). Otherwise, .loop_entry values from unrelated
states would poison env->cur_state.
Additionally, env->stack should not contain any states with
.loop_entry != NULL. The states in env->stack are yet to be verified,
while .loop_entry is set for states that reached an equivalent state.
This means that env->cur_state->loop_entry should always be NULL after
pop_stack().
See the selftest in the next commit for an example of the program that
is not safe yet is accepted by verifier w/o this fix.
This change has some verification performance impact for selftests:
File Program Insns (A) Insns (B) Insns (DIFF) States (A) States (B) States (DIFF)
---------------------------------- ---------------------------- --------- --------- -------------- ---------- ---------- -------------
arena_htab.bpf.o arena_htab_llvm 717 426 -291 (-40.59%) 57 37 -20 (-35.09%)
arena_htab_asm.bpf.o arena_htab_asm 597 445 -152 (-25.46%) 47 37 -10 (-21.28%)
arena_list.bpf.o arena_list_del 309 279 -30 (-9.71%) 23 14 -9 (-39.13%)
iters.bpf.o iter_subprog_check_stacksafe 155 141 -14 (-9.03%) 15 14 -1 (-6.67%)
iters.bpf.o iter_subprog_iters 1094 1003 -91 (-8.32%) 88 83 -5 (-5.68%)
iters.bpf.o loop_state_deps2 479 725 +246 (+51.36%) 46 63 +17 (+36.96%)
kmem_cache_iter.bpf.o open_coded_iter 63 59 -4 (-6.35%) 7 6 -1 (-14.29%)
verifier_bits_iter.bpf.o max_words 92 84 -8 (-8.70%) 8 7 -1 (-12.50%)
verifier_iterating_callbacks.bpf.o cond_break2 113 107 -6 (-5.31%) 12 12 +0 (+0.00%)
And significant negative impact for sched_ext:
File Program Insns (A) Insns (B) Insns (DIFF) States (A) States (B) States (DIFF)
----------------- ---------------------- --------- --------- -------------------- ---------- ---------- ------------------
bpf.bpf.o lavd_init 7039 14723 +7684 (+109.16%) 490 1139 +649 (+132.45%)
bpf.bpf.o layered_dispatch 11485 10548 -937 (-8.16%) 848 762 -86 (-10.14%)
bpf.bpf.o layered_dump 7422 1000001 +992579 (+13373.47%) 681 31178 +30497 (+4478.27%)
bpf.bpf.o layered_enqueue 16854 71127 +54273 (+322.02%) 1611 6450 +4839 (+300.37%)
bpf.bpf.o p2dq_dispatch 665 791 +126 (+18.95%) 68 78 +10 (+14.71%)
bpf.bpf.o p2dq_init 2343 2980 +637 (+27.19%) 201 237 +36 (+17.91%)
bpf.bpf.o refresh_layer_cpumasks 16487 674760 +658273 (+3992.68%) 1770 65370 +63600 (+3593.22%)
bpf.bpf.o rusty_select_cpu 1937 40872 +38935 (+2010.07%) 177 3210 +3033 (+1713.56%)
scx_central.bpf.o central_dispatch 636 2687 +2051 (+322.48%) 63 227 +164 (+260.32%)
scx_nest.bpf.o nest_init 636 815 +179 (+28.14%) 60 73 +13 (+21.67%)
scx_qmap.bpf.o qmap_dispatch
---truncated---
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