In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
nfsd: don't free session slots that are still in use
nfsd4_sequence() can free the very slot it is currently processing.
When the session shrinker has reduced se_target_maxslots below
se_fchannel.maxreqs, the shrink path checks three conditions before
calling free_session_slots():
- se_target_maxslots < maxreqs (shrink was advertised)
- slot->sl_generation == se_slot_gen (slot is up-to-date)
- seq->maxslots <= se_target_maxslots (client acknowledges)
However, seq->slotid is never checked against se_target_maxslots.
A client using a slot in the range [se_target_maxslots, maxreqs) can
satisfy all three conditions: its slot has the current generation
(set by a prior SEQUENCE), and it sends sa_highest_slotid <=
se_target_maxslots to acknowledge the reduction.
free_session_slots() then kfrees every slot at index >=
se_target_maxslots, including the caller's own slot. The function
continues to write sl_seqid, sl_flags, sl_generation, and stores the
dangling pointer in cstate->slot. Later, nfsd4_store_cache_entry()
copies up to maxresp_cached bytes of the compound reply into the freed
sl_data[] array, corrupting whatever slab object now occupies that
address.
Additionally, a concurrent thread processing SEQUENCE on a different
high-numbered slot can have its slot freed out from under it.
NFSD4_SLOT_INUSE is set under nn->client_lock before the lock is
released, so any concurrent thread past SEQUENCE will have its slot
marked. However, free_session_slots() does not check NFSD4_SLOT_INUSE
before freeing.
Fix both problems by:
- Checking that the current request's slotid is below the shrink
boundary.
- Scanning slots in the to-be-freed range for NFSD4_SLOT_INUSE and
deferring the shrink if any are active.
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