In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ata: libata-scsi: fix DSM TRIM for sector sizes larger than 2048 bytes
ata_scsi_write_same_xlat() translates a SCSI WRITE SAME command with the
UNMAP bit set into an ATA DATA SET MANAGEMENT TRIM command. The TRIM
descriptor is built by ata_format_dsm_trim_descr() into the 2048-byte
ata_scsi_rbuf staging buffer, and the number of bytes copied is compared
against the logical sector size by the caller:
size = ata_format_dsm_trim_descr(scmd, trmax, block, n_block);
if (size != len) /* len == sdp->sector_size */
goto invalid_param_len;
ata_format_dsm_trim_descr() clamps the copy length to ATA_SCSI_RBUF_SIZE
(2048). On a device whose logical sector size exceeds that (e.g. a 4Kn
device, where sector_size == 4096) the function can never return more than
2048, while the caller expects it to return sector_size. The comparison
therefore always fails, so every TRIM is rejected with "Parameter list
length error" and WARN_ON() splats on each attempt. TRIM / discard is
thus completely broken on such devices.
The descriptor was incorrectly sized from the logical sector size. A DSM
TRIM payload is a list of 512-byte pages, each holding up to
ATA_MAX_TRIM_RNUM (64) LBA Range Entries, and is independent of the logical
sector size. The Block Limits VPD page already advertises a single such
page as the maximum WRITE SAME length (65535 * ATA_MAX_TRIM_RNUM logical
blocks), so the block layer never sends a request that needs more than one
page.
Emit exactly one 512-byte page, independent of the logical sector size,
and transfer only that page (COUNT == 1). For a 512-byte-sector device
this is unchanged; devices with larger logical sectors now work instead of
failing every TRIM.
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