In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
power: supply: rt9455: quiesce delayed work before teardown
The threaded IRQ handler can queue pwr_rdy_work,
max_charging_time_work and batt_presence_work. pwr_rdy_work and
batt_presence_work can also queue max_charging_time_work, while
batt_presence_work can requeue itself.
rt9455_remove() cancels max_charging_time_work before
batt_presence_work. The latter can therefore queue
max_charging_time_work after it has already been cancelled:
rt9455_remove() workqueue
cancel pwr_rdy_work
cancel max_charging_time_work
batt_presence_work queues
max_charging_time_work
cancel batt_presence_work
return
devres frees rt9455_info
max_charging_time_work dereferences
rt9455_info
The IRQ also remains registered until devres cleanup and can queue more
work after any of the cancellation calls. If rt9455_hw_init() fails
after the IRQ has been requested, probe returns without cancelling work
that may already have been queued. A pending callback can then access
rt9455_info after it has been freed.
Register rt9455_cancel_all_delayed_works() through
devm_add_action_or_reset() right after devm_power_supply_register().
devres invokes the action in reverse registration order, after the
managed IRQ has been freed and before rt9455_info is released, so the
delayed works are drained in both rt9455_remove() and the probe error
path. Cancel pwr_rdy_work and batt_presence_work before
max_charging_time_work because both can queue the latter.
This issue was found by an in-house static analysis tool.
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