In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
device property: fix infinite loop in fwnode_for_each_child_node()
When iterate over children of a fwnode that has a secondary fwnode,
fwnode_get_next_child_node() can enter an infinite loop if the secondary
fwnode has more than one child.
Parent Child
(Primary fwnode) FWa: {FWa1, FWa2, FWa3}
(Secondary fwnode) FWb: {FWb1, FWb2}
In this case:
┌─> fwnode_get_next_child_node(FWa, FWa1)
│ - fwnode_call_ptr_op(FWa, get_next_child_node, FWa1) returns FWa2
│
│ ...
│
│ fwnode_get_next_child_node(FWa, FWa3)
│ - fwnode_call_ptr_op(FWa, get_next_child_node, FWa3) returns NULL
│ - fwnode_call_ptr_op(FWb, get_next_child_node, FWa3) returns FWb1
│
│ fwnode_get_next_child_node(FWa, FWb1)
│ - fwnode_call_ptr_op(FWa, get_next_child_node, FWb1) returns FWa1
└────┘
This cause fwnode_for_each_child_node() to loop indefinitely, reapeatedly
output {FWa1, FWa2, FWa3, FWb1, FWa1, ...}.
The root cause is that when the current child (FWb1) belongs to the
secondary fwnode, calling get_next_child_node() on the parimary fwnode
incorrectly returns the first child (FWa1) again instead of NULL.
Fix this by dynamically checking the parent fwnode of the current child
before calling get_next_child_node(). This approach follows the pattern
established in commit b5b41ab6b0c1 ("device property: Check
fwnode->secondary in fwnode_graph_get_next_endpoint()").
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