In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
net: ifb: report ethtool stats over num_tx_queues
ifb_dev_init() allocates dp->tx_private to dev->num_tx_queues
entries via kzalloc_objs(*txp, dev->num_tx_queues). Both IFB
per-queue RX and TX stats live in those entries: ifb_xmit() updates
txp->rx_stats using the skb queue mapping, ifb_ri_tasklet() updates
txp->tx_stats, and ifb_stats64() aggregates both over
dev->num_tx_queues.
The ethtool stats callbacks instead size and walk the per-queue
stats with dev->real_num_rx_queues and dev->real_num_tx_queues. With
an asymmetric device where the RX queue count exceeds the TX queue
count, for example:
ip link add name ifb10 numtxqueues 1 numrxqueues 8 type ifb
ethtool -S ifb10
ifb_get_ethtool_stats() indexes past the tx_private allocation and
copies adjacent slab data through ETHTOOL_GSTATS.
Use dev->num_tx_queues consistently for the stats strings, the
stats count, and the stats data walks. This reports one RX stats
group and one TX stats group for each backing ifb_q_private entry,
which is the queue set IFB can actually populate.
Reproduced under UML+KASAN at v7.1-rc2:
BUG: KASAN: slab-out-of-bounds in ifb_fill_stats_data+0x3c/0xae
Read of size 8 at addr 0000000062dbd228 by task ethtool/36
ifb_fill_stats_data+0x3c/0xae
ifb_get_ethtool_stats+0xc0/0x129
__dev_ethtool+0x1ca5/0x363c
dev_ethtool+0x123/0x1b3
dev_ioctl+0x56c/0x744
sock_do_ioctl+0x15f/0x1b2
sock_ioctl+0x4d5/0x50a
sys_ioctl+0xd8b/0xde9
With the patch applied, the same UML+KASAN repro is silent and
ethtool -S ifb10 reports only the stats backed by the single
allocated tx_private entry.
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