In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
net: macb: Shuffle the tx ring before enabling tx
Quanyang observed that when using an NFS rootfs on an AMD ZynqMp board,
the rootfs may take an extended time to recover after a suspend.
Upon investigation, it was determined that the issue originates from a
problem in the macb driver.
According to the Zynq UltraScale TRM [1], when transmit is disabled,
the transmit buffer queue pointer resets to point to the address
specified by the transmit buffer queue base address register.
In the current implementation, the code merely resets queue->tx_head
and queue->tx_tail to '0'. This approach presents several issues:
- Packets already queued in the tx ring are silently lost,
leading to memory leaks since the associated skbs cannot be released.
- Concurrent write access to
queue->tx_head and queue->tx_tail may
occur from
macb_tx_poll() or
macb_start_xmit() when these values
are reset to '0'.
- The transmission may become stuck on a packet that has already been sent
out, with its 'TX_USED' bit set, but has not yet been processed. However,
due to the manipulation of 'queue->tx_head' and 'queue->tx_tail',
macb_tx_poll() incorrectly assumes there are no packets to handle
because
queue->tx_head == queue->tx_tail. This issue is only resolved
when a new packet is placed at this position. This is the root cause of
the prolonged recovery time observed for the NFS root filesystem.
To resolve this issue, shuffle the tx ring and tx skb array so that
the first unsent packet is positioned at the start of the tx ring.
Additionally, ensure that updates to queue->tx_head and
queue->tx_tail are properly protected with the appropriate lock.
[1] https://docs.amd.com/v/u/en-US/ug1085-zynq-ultrascale-trm
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