In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
nvmet-tcp: fix race between ICReq handling and queue teardown
nvmet_tcp_handle_icreq() updates queue->state after sending an
Initialization Connection Response (ICResp), but it does so without
serializing against target-side queue teardown.
If an NVMe/TCP host sends an Initialization Connection Request
(ICReq) and immediately closes the connection, target-side teardown
may start in softirq context before io_work drains the already
buffered ICReq. In that case, nvmet_tcp_schedule_release_queue()
sets queue->state to NVMET_TCP_Q_DISCONNECTING and drops the queue
reference under state_lock.
If io_work later processes that ICReq, nvmet_tcp_handle_icreq() can
still overwrite the state back to NVMET_TCP_Q_LIVE. That defeats the
DISCONNECTING-state guard in nvmet_tcp_schedule_release_queue() and
allows a later socket state change to re-enter teardown and issue a
second kref_put() on an already released queue.
The ICResp send failure path has the same problem. If teardown has
already moved the queue to DISCONNECTING, a send error can still
overwrite the state with NVMET_TCP_Q_FAILED, again reopening the
window for a second teardown path to drop the queue reference.
Fix this by serializing both post-send state transitions with
state_lock and bailing out if teardown has already started.
Use -ESHUTDOWN as an internal sentinel for that bail-out path rather
than propagating it as a transport error like -ECONNRESET. Keep
nvmet_tcp_socket_error() setting rcv_state to NVMET_TCP_RECV_ERR before
honoring that sentinel so receive-side parsing stays quiesced until the
existing release path completes.
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