In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
bpf, x86: Fix per-CPU address resolution into an extended register
The destination of the per-CPU address MOV is encoded in ModRM.reg,
which is extended by REX.R, but the REX prefix is built with
add_1mod(), which sets REX.B. REX.B extends ModRM.rm and SIB.base, and
this instruction addresses memory as disp32 with no base, so the bit
has no effect at all and the high register bit is simply lost.
Every is_ereg() destination therefore resolves to the wrong register,
picking whichever one shares the low three bits:
R5 -> RAX R7 -> RBP R8 -> RSI R9 -> RDI
With BPF_REG_5, whose reg2hex is 0, the emitted
65 49 03 04 25 add %gs:,%rax
adds the per-CPU offset to RAX rather than R8. The destination keeps
the unadjusted address and RAX is clobbered, so the program goes on to
dereference a pointer that was never made per-CPU:
BUG: unable to handle page fault for address: 0000607e386a8894
RIP: bpf_prog_707837aafd2aa9ae_update_percpu_data+0x93/0xc9
Call Trace:
__bpf_prog_test_run_raw_tp+0x2dc/0x7d0
__flush_smp_call_function_queue+0x1e9/0xc80
Kernel panic - not syncing: Fatal exception in interrupt
R5 is the mildest of the four, aliasing a scratch register and faulting
at the store. R7 aliases RBP and would corrupt the frame pointer, R8
and R9 alias the argument registers.
Use add_2mod() so the register goes through REX.R, matching how
add_2reg() places it in ModRM.reg and how emit_priv_frame_ptr()
hardcodes 0x4c for the same instruction with R9. Encodings for the
non-extended registers are unchanged.
Problem showed up when trying to resurrect BPF_GCC CI (selftests built
with BPF_GCC).
This has gone unnoticed because clang reloads the address into R1
before each per-CPU access, so the destination is never an extended
register. GCC keeps several per-CPU addresses live at once, and
test_progs-bpf_gcc panics the kernel in global_percpu_data/init, where
the address of a .percpu variable ends up in R5.
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