In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
liveupdate: luo_file: remember retrieve() status
LUO keeps track of successful retrieve attempts on a LUO file. It does so
to avoid multiple retrievals of the same file. Multiple retrievals cause
problems because once the file is retrieved, the serialized data
structures are likely freed and the file is likely in a very different
state from what the code expects.
The retrieve boolean in struct luo_file keeps track of this, and is passed
to the finish callback so it knows what work was already done and what it
has left to do.
All this works well when retrieve succeeds. When it fails,
luo_retrieve_file() returns the error immediately, without ever storing
anywhere that a retrieve was attempted or what its error code was. This
results in an errored LIVEUPDATE_SESSION_RETRIEVE_FD ioctl to userspace,
but nothing prevents it from trying this again.
The retry is problematic for much of the same reasons listed above. The
file is likely in a very different state than what the retrieve logic
normally expects, and it might even have freed some serialization data
structures. Attempting to access them or free them again is going to
break things.
For example, if memfd managed to restore 8 of its 10 folios, but fails on
the 9th, a subsequent retrieve attempt will try to call
kho_restore_folio() on the first folio again, and that will fail with a
warning since it is an invalid operation.
Apart from the retry, finish() also breaks. Since on failure the
retrieved bool in luo_file is never touched, the finish() call on session
close will tell the file handler that retrieve was never attempted, and it
will try to access or free the data structures that might not exist, much
in the same way as the retry attempt.
There is no sane way of attempting the retrieve again. Remember the error
retrieve returned and directly return it on a retry. Also pass this
status code to finish() so it can make the right decision on the work it
needs to do.
This is done by changing the bool to an integer. A value of 0 means
retrieve was never attempted, a positive value means it succeeded, and a
negative value means it failed and the error code is the value.
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