In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
HID: universal-pidff: stop the device when force-feedback init fails
universal_pidff_probe() starts the device with hid_hw_start() and then, if
force-feedback initialisation fails, returns the error through a label that
only does "return error". The device is left started.
The HID core does not unwind on the driver's behalf. __hid_device_probe()
releases the devres group, closes the report and clears hdev->driver:
if (ret) {
devres_release_group(&hdev->dev, hdev->devres_group_id);
hid_close_report(hdev);
hdev->driver = NULL;
}
The hidraw character device that hid_hw_start() registered through
hid_connect() is allocated with kzalloc() and added with cdev_device_add(),
so it is not devres-managed and survives that. With hdev->driver NULL,
hid_device_remove() skips hid_hw_stop() as well, because it only unwinds
while a driver is still attached. The registration therefore outlives the
device on both paths.
Opening the surviving /dev/hidrawX writes into freed memory. KASAN reports
a use-after-free write from hidraw_open() -> hid_hw_open() -> the
transport's open callback, which takes a spinlock inside the freed object.
A descriptor that carries a PID usage page and no input reports is enough:
hidraw claims the device so hid_hw_start() succeeds, while hid->inputs
stays empty so force-feedback init fails. The other failure returns in
hid_pidff_init_with_quirks() - no output reports, an allocation failure,
pidff_init_fields(), pidff_check_autocenter(), an unusable effect count,
input_ff_create() - all reach the same label.
Stop the device on that path. hid-dr.c and hid-emsff.c, which start the
device with the same HID_CONNECT_DEFAULT & ~HID_CONNECT_FF mask, already do
this. The two earlier gotos must keep returning without hid_hw_stop(),
since neither has a started device, so give the path that fails after the
start its own label.
Discovered by XBOW, triaged by Baul Lee
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