In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
mm/damon/core: fix damos_walk() vs kdamond_fn() exit race
When kdamond_fn() main loop is finished, the function cancels remaining
damos_walk() request and unset the damon_ctx->kdamond so that API callers
and API functions themselves can show the context is terminated.
damos_walk() adds the caller's request to the queue first. After that, it
shows if the kdamond of the damon_ctx is still running (damon_ctx->kdamond
is set). Only if the kdamond is running, damos_walk() starts waiting for
the kdamond's handling of the newly added request.
The damos_walk() requests registration and damon_ctx->kdamond unset are
protected by different mutexes, though. Hence, damos_walk() could race
with damon_ctx->kdamond unset, and result in deadlocks.
For example, let's suppose kdamond successfully finished the damow_walk()
request cancelling. Right after that, damos_walk() is called for the
context. It registers the new request, and shows the context is still
running, because damon_ctx->kdamond unset is not yet done. Hence the
damos_walk() caller starts waiting for the handling of the request.
However, the kdamond is already on the termination steps, so it never
handles the new request. As a result, the damos_walk() caller thread
infinitely waits.
Fix this by introducing another damon_ctx field, namely
walk_control_obsolete. It is protected by the
damon_ctx->walk_control_lock, which protects damos_walk() request
registration. Initialize (unset) it in kdamond_fn() before letting
damon_start() returns and set it just before the cancelling of the
remaining damos_walk() request is executed. damos_walk() reads the
obsolete field under the lock and avoids adding a new request.
After this change, only requests that are guaranteed to be handled or
cancelled are registered. Hence the after-registration DAMON context
termination check is no longer needed. Remove it together.
The issue is found by sashiko [1].
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (4.7): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 4.7 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 4.7 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