In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
RDMA/rxe: validate access flags before swapping the MR's PD
rxe_rereg_user_mr() reassigns mr->ibmr.pd first and only then
validates the IB_MR_REREG_ACCESS argument:
if (flags & IB_MR_REREG_PD) {
rxe_put(old_pd);
rxe_get(pd);
mr->ibmr.pd = ibpd;
}
if (flags & IB_MR_REREG_ACCESS) {
if (access & ~RXE_ACCESS_SUPPORTED_MR)
return ERR_PTR(-EOPNOTSUPP);
mr->access = access;
}
Both flags pass the entry check because RXE_MR_REREG_SUPPORTED is
IB_MR_REREG_PD | IB_MR_REREG_ACCESS, so a caller can reach the access
check with mr->ibmr.pd already reassigned.
mr->ibmr.pd is owned by the core, which adjusts pd->usecnt only on the
success path: ib_uverbs_rereg_mr() jumps to put_new_uobj on a driver error
without undoing the reassignment, so mr->pd == new_pd while the usecnts
still charge the MR to orig_pd. ib_dereg_mr_user() then decrements
new_pd, whose count can reach zero while a memory window still references
it; uverbs_free_pd() frees the PD on that count alone and rxe_mw_cleanup()
writes to freed memory:
BUG: KASAN: slab-use-after-free in __rxe_put+0x31/0xa0
Write of size 4 at addr ffff8881301dd690 by task rxe_poc/591
__rxe_put+0x31/0xa0
rxe_mw_cleanup+0x42/0x200
__rxe_cleanup+0x115/0x370
rxe_dealloc_mw+0x4c/0x80
Allocated by task 591:
ib_uverbs_alloc_pd+0x258/0x540
Freed by task 591:
ib_dealloc_pd_user+0x174/0x210
uverbs_free_pd+0x8d/0xc0
ib_uverbs_dealloc_pd+0x18e/0x1d0
Validate the access flags before mutating any state so the callback either
applies every requested change or none.
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