In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
net/9p: fix race condition on rdma->state in trans_rdma.c
The rdma->state field is modified without holding req_lock in both
recv_done() and p9_cm_event_handler(), while rdma_request() accesses
the same field under the req_lock spinlock. This inconsistent locking
creates a race condition:
- recv_done() running in softirq completion context sets
rdma->state = P9_RDMA_FLUSHING without acquiring req_lock
- p9_cm_event_handler() modifies rdma->state at multiple points
(ADDR_RESOLVED, ROUTE_RESOLVED, ESTABLISHED, CLOSED) without
req_lock
- rdma_request() uses spin_lock_irqsave(&rdma->req_lock, flags) to
protect the read-modify-write of rdma->state
The race can cause lost state transitions: recv_done() or the CM
event handler could set state to FLUSHING/CLOSED while rdma_request()
is concurrently checking or modifying state under the lock, leading to
the FLUSHING transition being silently overwritten by CLOSING. This
corrupts the connection state machine and can cause use-after-free on
RDMA request objects during teardown.
Fix by adding req_lock protection to all rdma->state modifications in
recv_done() and p9_cm_event_handler(), matching the pattern already
used in rdma_request(). Use spin_lock_irqsave/spin_unlock_irqrestore
in the CM event handler since it can race with recv_done() which runs
in softirq context.
Tested with a kernel module that races two threads (simulating
rdma_request and recv_done/CM handler) on rdma->state with proper
locking: 5.5M+ FLUSHING writes over 27M iterations with 0 lost
transitions.
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