In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
power: supply: charger-manager: register regulators before exposing sysfs
charger_manager_remove() and the err_reg_extcon probe error path free each
charger regulator with regulator_put() before tearing down the power_supply
sysfs entries (power_supply_unregister()). charger_manager_remove() also
calls try_charger_enable(cm, false) after the regulator_put() loop. A
concurrent write to a charger's externally_control sysfs attribute that
lands between regulator_put() and power_supply_unregister() can run
charger_externally_control_store() and call try_charger_enable(), which,
when charging is enabled, dereferences the already-freed consumer handle.
When charging is enabled, try_charger_enable(cm, false) in .remove() also
dereferences the freed handles directly. Both leave use-after-free windows.
Symmetrically, probe registers the sysfs entries (power_supply_register)
before acquiring the regulators (regulator_get, inside
charger_manager_register_extcon), so userspace can reach externally_control
before the regulators are available.
Split charger_manager_register_extcon() on the sync/async boundary:
charger_manager_get_regulators() (regulator_get only, no async producer)
now runs before power_supply_register() so sysfs is not live before
regulators are available, and charger_manager_register_extcon() keeps only
the extcon notifier/work setup, still after power_supply_register() so a
power_supply_register() failure cannot reach extcon setup. This keeps the
sysfs setup/teardown ordering symmetric without introducing an asynchronous
producer on the earlier probe-error path.
Move power_supply_unregister() and try_charger_enable(cm, false) ahead of
the regulator_put() loop on both teardown paths, and adjust err_reg_extcon
(power_supply_unregister() then fall through err_regulator for
regulator_put(); get_regulators self-rolls back on its own failure).
This does not address the separate extcon-notifier-driven deref of the same
handles, which needs its own synchronization design.
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