In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ixgbevf: fix use-after-free in VEPA multicast source pruning
ixgbevf_clean_rx_irq() prunes frames whose source MAC matches the VF's
own address (VEPA multicast workaround) by freeing the skb and
continuing to the next descriptor:
dev_kfree_skb_irq(skb);
continue;
The skb pointer is declared outside the while loop and persists across
iterations. Because the continue skips the "skb = NULL" reset at the
bottom of the loop, the next iteration enters the "else if (skb)" path
and calls ixgbevf_add_rx_frag() on the freed skb, dereferencing
skb_shinfo(skb)->nr_frags - a use-after-free in NAPI softirq context.
The sibling driver iavf already handles this correctly by nulling the
pointer before continuing. Apply the same pattern here.
I do not have ixgbevf hardware; the bug was found by static analysis
(scan_drop_continue_loops.py + semgrep drop_continue_in_loop, multi-tool
corroboration with the highest score in the scan). The UAF was confirmed
under KASAN by loading a test module that reproduces the exact code
pattern (alloc skb, kfree_skb, then read skb_shinfo(skb)->nr_frags):
BUG: KASAN: slab-use-after-free in ixgbevf_uaf_test_init+0x100/0x1000
Read of size 8 at addr 000000006163ae78 by task insmod/30
freed 208-byte region [000000006163adc0, 000000006163ae90)
QEMU emulates igb (82576) but not ixgbe (82599), and the igbvf VF
driver does not include the VEPA source pruning path, so a full
end-to-end reproduction with emulated hardware was not possible.
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