In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
nfsd: restore rq_status_counter to even on all nfsd_dispatch() exit paths
nfsd_dispatch() sets rq_status_counter to an odd value once a request has
been decoded, and back to an even value once it has been fully processed,
forming a seq-lock like protocol with the lockless reader in
nfsd_nl_rpc_status_get_dumpit().
Only the fully successful path restored the counter to even. The cache-hit
(RC_REPLY), drop (RC_DROPIT / RQ_DROPME) and encode-error paths all return
after the odd-valued store without ever bringing the counter back to even.
Once one of those paths is taken, rq_status_counter is left odd: the next
request's decode ORs in 1 (still odd) and only a subsequent successful
encode restores even. While stuck odd, the dumpit reader treats the rqstp
fields as stable and its retry check compares against the same unchanging
odd value, so it never detects concurrent mutation. This exposes actively
mutating fields (e.g. args->ops / args->opcnt during compound decode and
release) to the lockless reader, which can read past the end of the
8-element inline ops array.
Add a helper that advances the counter to the next even value and call it
on every return path that follows the odd-valued store. The decode-error
path is left untouched as it is reached before the counter is set odd.
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