In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
SUNRPC: Check svc pool percpu counter allocation
__svc_create() initializes three per-pool percpu_counter stats and
ignores every return value. On SMP, percpu_counter_init() fails when
__alloc_percpu_gfp() cannot satisfy the allocation, leaving the failed
counter with fbc->counters == NULL and its embedded raw_spinlock_t,
list_head, and count never initialized. __svc_create() returns the
half-constructed svc_serv to nfsd, lockd, or the NFS callback service
anyway.
Once that service is live, the hot-path increments in
svc_xprt_enqueue(), svc_handle_xprt(), and
svc_pool_wake_idle_thread() reach a counter whose backing pointer is
NULL. The pointer is a per-cpu offset, so the access does not fault:
it resolves to offset zero of the current CPU's per-cpu area and
silently corrupts whatever variable lives there. A
/proc/fs/nfsd/pool_stats read walks the same NULL per-cpu storage and
returns garbage, and on CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK or lockdep it splats on
the never-initialized lock.
Creating the broken service requires a percpu allocation failure during
RPC server startup, so it is reachable only by a local administrator
under memory pressure or fault injection; a remote peer cannot induce
the bad state on its own.
Check each percpu_counter_init() return value in __svc_create() and
fail when an allocation fails, unwinding the counters already set up
in the current pool and in every pool initialized before it. A
discrete percpu_counter_destroy() per counter at teardown frees each
per-cpu allocation exactly once.
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