In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
USB: dummy-hcd: Fix locking/synchronization error
Syzbot testing was able to provoke an addressing exception and crash
in the usb_gadget_udc_reset() routine in
drivers/usb/gadgets/udc/core.c, resulting from the fact that the
routine was called with a second ("driver") argument of NULL. The bad
caller was set_link_state() in dummy_hcd.c, and the problem arose
because of a race between a USB reset and driver unbind.
These sorts of races were not supposed to be possible; commit
7dbd8f4cabd9 ("USB: dummy-hcd: Fix erroneous synchronization change"),
along with a few followup commits, was written specifically to prevent
them. As it turns out, there are (at least) two errors remaining in
the code. Another patch will address the second error; this one is
concerned with the first.
The error responsible for the syzbot crash occurred because the
stop_activity() routine will sometimes drop and then re-acquire the
dum->lock spinlock. A call to stop_activity() occurs in
set_link_state() when handling an emulated USB reset, after the test
of dum->ints_enabled and before the increment of dum->callback_usage.
This allowed another thread (doing a driver unbind) to sneak in and
grab the spinlock, and then clear dum->ints_enabled and dum->driver.
Normally this other thread would have to wait for dum->callback_usage
to go down to 0 before it would clear dum->driver, but in this case it
didn't have to wait since dum->callback_usage had not yet been
incremented.
The fix is to increment dum->callback_usage _before_ calling
stop_activity() instead of after. Then the thread doing the unbind
will not clear dum->driver until after the call to
usb_gadget_udc_reset() safely returns and dum->callback_usage has been
decremented again.
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