In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
vsock/vmci: fix UAF when peer resets connection during handshake
vmci_transport_recv_connecting_server() returned err = 0 for a peer
RST in its default switch arm:
err = pkt->type == VMCI_TRANSPORT_PACKET_TYPE_RST ? 0 : -EINVAL;
That made vmci_transport_recv_listen() skip vsock_remove_pending(),
leaving the pending socket on the listener's pending_links with
sk_state = TCP_CLOSE while destroy: still dropped the explicit
reference taken before schedule_delayed_work().
One second later vsock_pending_work() observed is_pending=true and
performed full cleanup: vsock_remove_pending() then the two trailing
sock_put(sk) calls -- the first reached refcount 0 and __sk_freed
the socket, and the second wrote into the freed object:
BUG: KASAN: slab-use-after-free in refcount_warn_saturate
Write of size 4 at addr ffff88800b1cac80 by task kworker
Workqueue: events vsock_pending_work
Treat peer RST like any other unexpected packet type (err = -EINVAL).
All destroy: arms now return err < 0, so vmci_transport_recv_listen()
removes pending from pending_links synchronously and
vsock_pending_work() takes the is_pending=false / !rejected branch,
dropping only its own work reference. This also closes the
multi-packet race Sashiko reported on v2: pending is removed from
the list before any subsequent packet can find it.
The pre-existing sk_acceptq_removed() gap on the err < 0 path of
vmci_transport_recv_listen() that Sashiko also noted is not
introduced or changed by this patch.
Tested on lts-6.12.79 with KASAN: 52/100 unpatched -> 0/100 patched.
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