In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
netconsole: Acquire su_mutex before navigating configs hierarchy
There is a race between operations that iterate over the userdata
cg_children list and concurrent add/remove of userdata items through
configfs. The update_userdata() function iterates over the
nt->userdata_group.cg_children list, and count_extradata_entries() also
iterates over this same list to count nodes.
Quoting from Documentation/filesystems/configfs.rst:
> A subsystem can navigate the cg_children list and the ci_parent pointer
> to see the tree created by the subsystem. This can race with configfs'
> management of the hierarchy, so configfs uses the subsystem mutex to
> protect modifications. Whenever a subsystem wants to navigate the
> hierarchy, it must do so under the protection of the subsystem
> mutex.
Without proper locking, if a userdata item is added or removed
concurrently while these functions are iterating, the list can be
accessed in an inconsistent state. For example, the list_for_each() loop
can reach a node that is being removed from the list by list_del_init()
which sets the nodes' .next pointer to point to itself, so the loop will
never end (or reach the WARN_ON_ONCE in update_userdata() ).
Fix this by holding the configfs subsystem mutex (su_mutex) during all
operations that iterate over cg_children.
This includes:
- userdatum_value_store() which calls update_userdata() to iterate over
cg_children
- All sysdata_*_enabled_store() functions which call
count_extradata_entries() to iterate over cg_children
The su_mutex must be acquired before dynamic_netconsole_mutex to avoid
potential lock ordering issues, as configfs operations may already hold
su_mutex when calling into our code.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
- EG Severity
- Not assessed: no CVSS publishedA missing CVSS is not a severity of zero.
- 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
- No SSVC decision: EchelonGraph has not assessed this CVECISA 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 BOD 26-04 block below.
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