In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
firmware: stratix10-rsu: Fix NULL deref on rsu_send_msg() timeout in probe
rsu_send_msg() can return -ETIMEDOUT when
wait_for_completion_interruptible_timeout() fires while the SMC call is still
pending. In stratix10_rsu_probe(), the error paths for COMMAND_RSU_DCMF_VERSION,
COMMAND_RSU_DCMF_STATUS, COMMAND_RSU_MAX_RETRY and COMMAND_RSU_GET_SPT_TABLE
call stratix10_svc_free_channel() - which sets chan->scl to NULL - but then
fall through and queue the next request on the same channel. The next svc
kthread that runs will dereference pdata->chan->scl in its receive callback
path, triggering a NULL pointer dereference identical to the one fixed by
commit c45f7263100c ("firmware: stratix10-rsu: Fix NULL pointer dereference
when RSU is disabled") for the COMMAND_RSU_STATUS path.
Apply the same cleanup pattern to the remaining failure paths: remove the
async client, free the channel, and return early so no further messages are
queued on a channel whose scl has been cleared.
While at it, clean up stratix10_rsu_probe() in two ways without changing
behavior:
- Drop redundant zero-initialization of fields already cleared by
devm_kzalloc(): client.receive_cb, status.* and spt0/1_address
(INVALID_SPT_ADDRESS is 0x0).
- Replace five identical 3-line error-cleanup blocks
(stratix10_svc_remove_async_client() + stratix10_svc_free_channel() +
return ret) with goto labels (remove_async_client, free_channel),
matching the standard kernel resource-unwinding pattern and making it
easier to extend the probe sequence without forgetting matching
cleanup.
Also move init_completion() next to mutex_init() so sync-primitive
initialization is grouped before anything that could trigger a
callback.
v2: Add a minor clean-up of the function stratix10_rsu_probe() to have a
centralize exit for all the rsu_send_async_msg() and rsu_send_msg().
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