In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
bpf: Harden bloom filter sizing and indexing on 32-bit kernels
bloom_map_alloc() has two 32-bit-specific problems when the computed
bitmap reaches the U32_MAX fallback case.
First, BITS_TO_BYTES(U32_MAX) is evaluated with 32-bit arithmetic. The
addition performed by DIV_ROUND_UP wraps, so the map allocates only the
fixed-size bloom filter object while keeping bitset_mask == U32_MAX.
Subsequent updates can then write past the allocated object.
Second, fixing only the allocation size is not sufficient. The bloom hash
is a u32, but set_bit() takes a signed long bit number and x86 test_bit()
eventually feeds the index to variable_test_bit(long, ...). On 32-bit
kernels, hashes in [0x80000000, U32_MAX] therefore become negative bit
offsets. x86 bt/bts with a memory operand interpret those offsets relative
to the supplied base, so a map with bitset_mask == U32_MAX can read or
write before bloom->bitset even after allocating the full 512 MiB bitmap.
Keep the U32_MAX fallback, but split each hash into a word pointer and an
in-word bit number before calling test_bit() or set_bit(). The bitops
argument is then always in [0, BITS_PER_LONG - 1], while BIT_WORD(h) still
selects the intended word in the full bitmap.
Compute the bitset size from (u64)bitset_mask + 1 before passing the final
size to bpf_map_area_alloc(). This fixes the original under-allocation and
keeps the allocated storage consistent with the addressable bitset.
Exploitation note: local privilege escalation is possible on a 32-bit x86
kernel using the under-allocation bug from a binary with CAP_BPF.
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