In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
bpf: Disable preemption in __bpf_get_stack
get_perf_callchain() returns a per-CPU perf_callchain_entry buffer and
releases its recursion slot via put_callchain_entry() before returning,
so nothing keeps the entry reserved while __bpf_get_stack() consumes
it below.
A preemptible BPF program (e.g. a non-sleepable raw tracepoint program
on a PREEMPT kernel, which runs under migrate_disable() but not
preempt_disable()) can be scheduled out between obtaining the entry
and the copy. Another task scheduled on the same CPU then reuses the
same per-CPU buffer and overwrites trace->nr with a larger value.
copy_len is then computed from the inflated trace->nr and can exceed
the caller's buffer, causing an out-of-bounds write in the memcpy()
and in the build_id path.
The rcu_read_lock() taken here alone does not prevent this. It is
only taken on the may_fault path, and under CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU it does
not disable preemption; it merely keeps perf's callchain buffer array
alive (freed via call_rcu()) and does nothing to stop another task
from reusing the entry.
Disable preemption around obtaining the callchain entry and copying
it into the caller's buffer, so the entry cannot be reused underneath
us and trace->nr stays bounded by max_depth. Build ID resolution may
fault and is therefore deferred until after preemption is re-enabled;
by then the instruction pointers have already been copied into buf,
so it operates only on that private copy. Note, preempt_disable() also
subsumes the buffer-lifetime guarantee the rcu_read_lock() provided,
since a preempt-disabled section is an RCU read-side critical section
for the callchain buffers' call_rcu() reclaim.
[ changed Fixes: commit ]
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