In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
igc: don't fail igc_probe() on LED setup error
When igc_led_setup() fails, igc_probe() fails and triggers kernel panic
in free_netdev() since unregister_netdev() is not called. [1]
This behavior can be tested using fault-injection framework, especially
the failslab feature. [2]
Since LED support is not mandatory, treat LED setup failures as
non-fatal and continue probe with a warning message, consequently
avoiding the kernel panic.
[1]
kernel BUG at net/core/dev.c:12047!
Oops: invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] SMP NOPTI
CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 937 Comm: repro-igc-led-e Not tainted 6.17.0-rc4-enjuk-tnguy-00865-gc4940196ab02 #64 PREEMPT(voluntary)
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS 1.16.3-debian-1.16.3-2 04/01/2014
RIP: 0010:free_netdev+0x278/0x2b0
[...]
Call Trace:
igc_probe+0x370/0x910
local_pci_probe+0x3a/0x80
pci_device_probe+0xd1/0x200
[...]
[2]
#!/bin/bash -ex
FAILSLAB_PATH=/sys/kernel/debug/failslab/
DEVICE=0000:00:05.0
START_ADDR=$(grep " igc_led_setup" /proc/kallsyms \
| awk '{printf("0x%s", $1)}')
END_ADDR=$(printf "0x%x" $((START_ADDR + 0x100)))
echo $START_ADDR > $FAILSLAB_PATH/require-start
echo $END_ADDR > $FAILSLAB_PATH/require-end
echo 1 > $FAILSLAB_PATH/times
echo 100 > $FAILSLAB_PATH/probability
echo N > $FAILSLAB_PATH/ignore-gfp-wait
echo $DEVICE > /sys/bus/pci/drivers/igc/bind
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 (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (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 Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (CISA Vulnrichment). 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