In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
nfsd: close shrinker/GC/fsnotify vs per-net shutdown race in filecache
The shrinker, GC worker, and fsnotify/lease callbacks can unhash an
nfsd_file from the rhashtable and then call
nfsd_file_dispose_list_delayed() to move it to the per-net dispose list.
If nfsd_file_cache_shutdown_net() runs concurrently, its rhashtable walk
misses the already-unhashed file, and its drain of the per-net dispose
list can run before the file has been queued. The file then sits on
the per-net list with no thread to drain it, leaking both the file and
its associated state.
The GC worker and shrinker already hold nfsd_gc_lock while walking the
LRU, but in the original code they release it before calling
nfsd_file_dispose_list_delayed(). The fsnotify/lease path
(nfsd_file_close_inode) has no synchronization at all.
Fix this by:
- Widening nfsd_gc_lock in both nfsd_file_gc() and nfsd_file_lru_scan()
to cover the nfsd_file_dispose_list_delayed() call.
- Wrapping nfsd_file_close_inode() in nfsd_gc_lock so that all three
callers of nfsd_file_dispose_list_delayed() hold the lock.
- Adding a spin_lock/unlock(nfsd_gc_lock) barrier in
nfsd_file_cache_shutdown_net() after the purge, so that any
in-progress disposal has fully completed before the per-net list
is drained.
All operations inside the lock are non-sleeping (rhashtable lookups,
atomic bit/refcount ops, list moves, svc_wake_up), so the spinlock is
appropriate.
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