In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
esp: downgrade zerocopy managed frags before mutating skb frags
On the out-of-place output path (esp->inplace == false) ESP rewrites the
skb frag array: esp_output_head() appends a trailer frag and
esp_output_tail() replaces the frags with a destination page, both
referenced with get_page().
When the skb carries zerocopy managed frags (SKBFL_MANAGED_FRAG_REFS) the
payload frags are owned by the ubuf and must not be referenced or
unreferenced individually, but ESP mutates the frag array without ever
downgrading the skb. This breaks the managed-frag invariant two ways:
- esp_ssg_unref() walks the source scatterlist and drops a page
reference for every frag, including the ubuf-owned payload frags,
pushing their refcount below the GUP pin bias while the pages are
still pinned, i.e. a use-after-free of the zerocopy pages;
- esp_output_tail() installs its destination page as frag 0 with
get_page() but leaves SKBFL_MANAGED_FRAG_REFS set, so
skb_release_data() takes the skip_unref branch and never drops that
reference, leaking the x->xfrag page at packet rate.
Fix this the way every other frag-mutating site does (__ip_append_data(),
__ip6_append_data(), tcp_sendmsg_locked()) and call
skb_zcopy_downgrade_managed() before ESP touches the frag array: it takes
a real reference on each existing frag and clears SKBFL_MANAGED_FRAG_REFS,
so the per-frag unref in esp_ssg_unref() and the frag release in
skb_release_data() are both balanced and no mixed-ownership frag array is
left behind.
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