In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
gpib: fix use-after-free in IO ioctl handlers
The IBRD, IBWRT, IBCMD, and IBWAIT ioctl handlers use a gpib_descriptor
pointer after board->big_gpib_mutex has been released. A concurrent
IBCLOSEDEV ioctl can free the descriptor via close_dev_ioctl() during
this window, causing a use-after-free.
The IO handlers (read_ioctl, write_ioctl, command_ioctl) explicitly
release big_gpib_mutex before calling their handler. wait_ioctl() is
called with big_gpib_mutex held, but ibwait() releases it internally
when wait_mask is non-zero. In all four cases, the descriptor pointer
obtained from handle_to_descriptor() becomes unprotected.
Fix this by introducing a kernel-only descriptor_busy reference count
in struct gpib_descriptor. Each handler atomically increments
descriptor_busy under file_priv->descriptors_mutex before releasing the
lock, and decrements it when done. close_dev_ioctl() checks
descriptor_busy under the same lock and rejects the close with -EBUSY
if the count is non-zero.
A reference count rather than a simple flag is necessary because
multiple handlers can operate on the same descriptor concurrently
(e.g. IBRD and IBWAIT on the same handle from different threads).
A separate counter is needed because io_in_progress can be cleared from
unprivileged userspace via the IBWAIT ioctl (through general_ibstatus()
with set_mask containing CMPL), which would allow an attacker to bypass
a check based solely on io_in_progress. The new descriptor_busy
counter is only modified by the kernel IO paths.
The lock ordering is consistent (big_gpib_mutex -> descriptors_mutex)
and the handlers only hold descriptors_mutex briefly during the lookup,
so there is no deadlock risk and no impact on IO throughput.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.8 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.1% 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: 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.
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