In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
mfd: qnap-mcu: keep the reply buffer alive past a command timeout
qnap_mcu_exec() publishes an on-stack buffer to the receive path:
unsigned char rx[QNAP_MCU_RX_BUFFER_SIZE];
...
reply->data = rx;
reply->length = length;
and qnap_mcu_receive_buf() writes into it from the serdev receive path,
which runs out of flush_to_ldisc() and is not serialized against
qnap_mcu_exec() at all. bus_lock cannot cover it, because qnap_mcu_exec()
holds that mutex across wait_for_completion_timeout().
On a timeout qnap_mcu_exec() returns with reply->data still pointing at
its own frame. A reply that arrives late, or an unsolicited message from
the MCU, is then written into a stack frame that has been left, corrupting
whatever runs next on that stack. The same applies when qnap_mcu_write()
fails, since that path returns without touching the reply state either.
Move the receive buffer into struct qnap_mcu. It is 37 bytes and the
structure is devm_kzalloc()ed, so it lives as long as the driver, and a
late write lands in memory that is still valid and is reinitialized by the
next command. bus_lock keeps commands from sharing it.
This deliberately does not clear reply->data or reply->length on the
timeout path. Doing so races with qnap_mcu_receive_buf(), which reads both
after its
if (!reply->length)
return size;
check: clearing reply->data gives a NULL dereference, and clearing
reply->length alone removes the reply->received == reply->length exit
condition, so the copy loop runs until the uart chunk is consumed and
overruns the buffer. Leaving both set keeps the write bounded by
reply->length, which qnap_mcu_exec() has already checked against
sizeof(mcu->rx).
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