In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
md: do overflow check for sb->bblog_shift in super_1_load()
In super_1_load(), sb->bblog_shift is an __u8 type value loaded from on-
disk superblock. It is used for badblocks API badblocks_set() by the
following sequence,
1930 rdev->badblocks.shift = sb->bblog_shift;
1931 for (i = 0 ; i < (sectors << (9-3)) ; i++, bbp++) {
1932 u64 bb = le64_to_cpu(*bbp);
1933 int count = bb & (0x3ff);
1934 u64 sector = bb >> 10;
1935 sector <<= sb->bblog_shift;
1936 count <<= sb->bblog_shift;
1937 if (bb + 1 == 0)
1938 break;
1939 if (!badblocks_set(&rdev->badblocks, sector, count, 1))
1940 return -EINVAL;
1941 }
bb->bblog_shit is in range of 0-255, variable sector is 64bit width, for
an invalid bb->bblog_shit, it is possible to make sector be overflowed
by the following calculation,
1935 sector <<= sb->bblog_shift;
Then in turn when call badblocks_set() at line 1939 with the invalid
rdev->badblocks.shift set at line 1930, may result an overflow inside
_badblocks_clear() in block/badblocks.c.
Although there are many places to call badblocks APIs, the non-zero
shift value is only used in super_1_load(), other places always use 0 as
the shift value. Therefore it is unnecessary to do a general shift value
overflow check inside badblock API, and just check here as the caller.
This may avoid unnecessary check, make the badblocks API code more simple
and elegant.
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