In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
mm/slab: do not access current->mems_allowed_seq if !allow_spin
Lockdep complains when get_from_any_partial() is called in an NMI
context, because current->mems_allowed_seq is seqcount_spinlock_t and
not NMI-safe:
================================
WARNING: inconsistent lock state
6.19.0-rc5-kfree-rcu+ #315 Tainted: G N
--------------------------------
inconsistent {INITIAL USE} -> {IN-NMI} usage.
kunit_try_catch/9989 [HC1[1]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] takes:
ffff889085799820 (&____s->seqcount#3){.-.-}-{0:0}, at: ___slab_alloc+0x58f/0xc00
{INITIAL USE} state was registered at:
lock_acquire+0x185/0x320
kernel_init_freeable+0x391/0x1150
kernel_init+0x1f/0x220
ret_from_fork+0x736/0x8f0
ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30
irq event stamp: 56
hardirqs last enabled at (55): [] _raw_spin_unlock_irq+0x27/0x70
hardirqs last disabled at (56): [] __schedule+0x2a8a/0x6630
softirqs last enabled at (0): [] copy_process+0x1dc1/0x6a10
softirqs last disabled at (0): [<0000000000000000>] 0x0
other info that might help us debug this:
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0
----
lock(&____s->seqcount#3);
lock(&____s->seqcount#3);
* DEADLOCK *
According to Documentation/locking/seqlock.rst, seqcount_t is not
NMI-safe and seqcount_latch_t should be used when read path can interrupt
the write-side critical section. In this case, do not access
current->mems_allowed_seq and avoid retry.
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
- 0.1% 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, 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