In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
nfsd: size fh_verify server sockaddr slot by xpt_locallen
The nfsd_fh_verify and nfsd_fh_verify_err tracepoints declare the
server sockaddr slot sized by xpt_remotelen but fill it from
xpt_local using xpt_locallen:
TP_STRUCT__entry(
...
__sockaddr(server, rqstp->rq_xprt->xpt_remotelen)
...
)
TP_fast_assign(
...
__assign_sockaddr(server, &rqstp->rq_xprt->xpt_local,
rqstp->rq_xprt->xpt_locallen);
...
)
When xpt_locallen exceeds xpt_remotelen, __assign_sockaddr's memcpy
writes past the reserved ring-buffer slot. In the reverse direction
(xpt_locallen < xpt_remotelen) the slot is oversized and the
unwritten tail leaks prior ring-buffer contents to trace consumers.
The write-past-end case is reachable on NFS/UDP. svc_xprt_set_remote()
is only called from svc_tcp_accept() (net/sunrpc/svcsock.c) and from
the RDMA connect path; svc_create_socket() for UDP calls only
svc_xprt_set_local(), so xpt_remotelen stays 0 for the xprt's
lifetime. Every fh_verify trace for an NFSv2/v3-over-UDP request
then copies 16 or 28 bytes from xpt_local into a zero-byte slot.
The other NFSD tracepoints that record the server address
(NFSD_TRACE_PROC_CALL_FIELDS, NFSD_TRACE_PROC_RES_FIELDS,
SVC_RQST_ENDPOINT_FIELDS) already size the server slot by
xpt_locallen; nfsd_fh_verify and nfsd_fh_verify_err were the only
exceptions.
Fix by sizing the server slot with xpt_locallen so the declared slot
matches the copy length. The client slot and its assignment already
agree on xpt_remotelen and are left untouched.
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