In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
slub: fix data loss and overflow in krealloc()
Commit 2cd8231796b5 ("mm/slub: allow to set node and align in
k[v]realloc") introduced the ability to force a reallocation if the
original object does not satisfy new alignment or NUMA node, even when
the object is being shrunk.
This introduced two bugs in the reallocation fallback path:
- Data loss during NUMA migration: The jump to 'alloc_new' happens
before 'ks' and 'orig_size' are initialized. As a result, the
memcpy() in the 'alloc_new' block would copy 0 bytes into the new
allocation.
- Buffer overflow during shrinking: When shrinking an object while
forcing a new alignment, 'new_size' is smaller than the old size.
However, the memcpy() used the old size ('orig_size ?: ks'), leading
to an out-of-bounds write.
The same overflow bug exists in the kvrealloc() fallback path, where the
old bucket size ksize(p) is copied into the new buffer without being
bounded by the new size.
A simple reproducer:
// e.g. add to lkdtm as KREALLOC_SHRINK_OVERFLOW
while (1) {
void *p = kmalloc(128, GFP_KERNEL);
p = krealloc_node_align(p, 64, 256, GFP_KERNEL, NUMA_NO_NODE);
kfree(p);
}
demonstrates the issue:
==================================================================
BUG: KFENCE: out-of-bounds write in memcpy_orig+0x68/0x130
Out-of-bounds write at 0xffff8883ad757038 (120B right of kfence-#47):
memcpy_orig+0x68/0x130
krealloc_node_align_noprof+0x1c8/0x340
lkdtm_KREALLOC_SHRINK_OVERFLOW+0x8c/0xc0 [lkdtm]
lkdtm_do_action+0x3a/0x60 [lkdtm]
...
kfence-#47: 0xffff8883ad756fc0-0xffff8883ad756fff, size=64, cache=kmalloc-64
allocated by task 316 on cpu 7 at 97.680481s (0.021813s ago):
krealloc_node_align_noprof+0x19c/0x340
lkdtm_KREALLOC_SHRINK_OVERFLOW+0x8c/0xc0 [lkdtm]
lkdtm_do_action+0x3a/0x60 [lkdtm]
...
==================================================================
Fix it by moving the old size calculation to the top of __do_krealloc()
and bounding all copy lengths by the new allocation size.
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: 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