In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
net: lock the socket in sock_gettstamp()
sk->sk_flags must only be changed while holding the socket lock,
because sock_set_flag() and sock_reset_flag() use non atomic
operations (__set_bit() and __clear_bit()).
sock_gettstamp() is one of the last places where a bit of sk->sk_flags
is changed from a syscall without owning the socket lock, through
sock_enable_timestamp(sk, SOCK_TIMESTAMP).
sk_set_memalloc() and sk_clear_memalloc() also change sk->sk_flags
without the socket lock, but their callers (nbd, iscsi_tcp, nvme-tcp,
sunrpc, wireguard) need a careful audit, this will be addressed in a
separate patch.
Jungwoo Lee and Wongi Lee reported an UDP socket use-after-free
caused by this bug: a SIOCGSTAMPNS_NEW ioctl racing with bind()
can cancel the SOCK_RCU_FREE bit that udp_lib_get_port() just set,
because both threads perform a read-modify-write on the same word.
CPU 0 (bind) CPU 1 (SIOCGSTAMPNS_NEW)
-------------------------------- ----------------------------
read sk_flags = F read sk_flags = F
compute F | BIT(SOCK_RCU_FREE) compute F | BIT(SOCK_TIMESTAMP)
store F | BIT(SOCK_RCU_FREE)
sk_add_node_rcu(sk, ...)
store F | BIT(SOCK_TIMESTAMP)
After the lost update, SOCK_RCU_FREE is clear while the socket is
visible to lockless UDP receive lookups. sk_destruct() then frees
the socket immediately instead of waiting for a RCU grace period,
while the receive path still holds a reference-less pointer to it:
BUG: KASAN: slab-use-after-free in ipv4_pktinfo_prepare+0x30/0x410
Read of size 8 at addr ffff888008806610 by task exploit/207
CPU: 0 UID: 1000 PID: 207 Comm: exploit Not tainted 6.12.95+ #1
ipv4_pktinfo_prepare+0x30/0x410
udp_queue_rcv_one_skb+0x51c/0x1180
udp_unicast_rcv_skb+0x109/0x350
ip_protocol_deliver_rcu+0x14b/0x310
ip_local_deliver_finish+0x29d/0x390
ip_local_deliver+0x24d/0x2a0
Only grab the socket lock when SOCK_TIMESTAMP has to be set,
to keep the common case lockless.
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