In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
nfsd: Reset write verifier when async COPY writeback fails
Async COPY captures nn->writeverf at request time and reports it to
the client via CB_OFFLOAD after the worker kthread completes. When
the post-copy vfs_fsync_range() or filemap_check_wb_err() in
_nfsd_copy_file_range() reports an error, the worker correctly
leaves NFSD4_COPY_F_COMMITTED clear so that CB_OFFLOAD encodes
wr_stable_how as NFS_UNSTABLE, but the server's write verifier is
not rotated.
A client that receives NFS_UNSTABLE in CB_OFFLOAD follows up with
COMMIT to make the copied data durable. With the verifier
unchanged, COMMIT returns the same value the client just received
via CB_OFFLOAD, and the client concludes the copy is durable --
silently dropping the data whose writeback in fact failed. This
violates the UNSTABLE+COMMIT durability contract (RFC 7862 section
15.1, RFC 8881 section 18.32) and matches the bug just fixed in
nfsd_vfs_write() and nfsd_commit().
Rotate nn->writeverf at the writeback-failure site. The async COPY
worker has no svc_rqst, so commit_reset_write_verifier() is not
available here; calling nfsd_reset_write_verifier() directly
mirrors the trace-less reset already used by
nfsd_file_check_write_error() for the same purpose. Filter out
-EAGAIN and -ESTALE, matching commit_reset_write_verifier(), since
neither indicates a durable-storage failure.
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