In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
octeontx2-af: validate body pcifunc in rvu_mbox_handler_rep_event_notify
rvu_mbox_handler_rep_event_notify() in drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/
octeontx2/af/rvu_rep.c queues a sender-controlled REP_EVENT_NOTIFY
request body verbatim, and rvu_rep_up_notify() then forwards
event->pcifunc (the nested body field, distinct from the
AF-normalised header pcifunc) into rvu_get_pfvf(), rvu_get_pf() and
the AF->PF mailbox device index without any bounds check.
A VF attached to a PF that has been put into switchdev
representor mode reaches this path: the VF mailbox handler
otx2_pfvf_mbox_handler() forwards every message id including
MBOX_MSG_REP_EVENT_NOTIFY to AF without an allowlist, and the AF
dispatcher rewrites only msg->pcifunc, leaving struct
rep_event::pcifunc attacker-controlled. The sibling
rvu_mbox_handler_esw_cfg() refuses requests whose header pcifunc
is not rvu->rep_pcifunc; this handler has no equivalent gate.
An out-of-range body pcifunc selects an &rvu->pf[]/&rvu->hwvf[]
element past the allocated array and, for RVU_EVENT_MAC_ADDR_CHANGE,
turns into a six-byte attacker-chosen OOB ether_addr_copy() target
inside the queued worker; KASAN reports a slab-out-of-bounds write
in rvu_rep_wq_handler.
Reject malformed requests at the handler entry by gating on
is_pf_func_valid(), which is already the canonical PF/VF range check
in this driver; expose it via rvu.h so callers in rvu_rep.c can use
it instead of open-coding the same range arithmetic.
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