In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
net: gso: fix panic on frag_list with mixed head alloc types
Since commit 3dcbdb134f32 ("net: gso: Fix skb_segment splat when
splitting gso_size mangled skb having linear-headed frag_list"), it is
allowed to change gso_size of a GRO packet. However, that commit assumes
that "checking the first list_skb member suffices; i.e if either of the
list_skb members have non head_frag head, then the first one has too".
It turns out this assumption does not hold. We've seen BUG_ON being hit
in skb_segment when skbs on the frag_list had differing head_frag with
the vmxnet3 driver. This happens because __netdev_alloc_skb and
__napi_alloc_skb can return a skb that is page backed or kmalloced
depending on the requested size. As the result, the last small skb in
the GRO packet can be kmalloced.
There are three different locations where this can be fixed:
(1) We could check head_frag in GRO and not allow GROing skbs with
different head_frag. However, that would lead to performance
regression on normal forward paths with unmodified gso_size, where
!head_frag in the last packet is not a problem.
(2) Set a flag in bpf_skb_net_grow and bpf_skb_net_shrink indicating
that NETIF_F_SG is undesirable. That would need to eat a bit in
sk_buff. Furthermore, that flag can be unset when all skbs on the
frag_list are page backed. To retain good performance,
bpf_skb_net_grow/shrink would have to walk the frag_list.
(3) Walk the frag_list in skb_segment when determining whether
NETIF_F_SG should be cleared. This of course slows things down.
This patch implements (3). To limit the performance impact in
skb_segment, the list is walked only for skbs with SKB_GSO_DODGY set
that have gso_size changed. Normal paths thus will not hit it.
We could check only the last skb but since we need to walk the whole
list anyway, let's stay on the safe side.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (5.5): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 5.5 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 5.5 MEDIUMCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.5% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS. FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
- Confirmed exploitation
- None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
- EG Priority
- SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
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.
The score's inputs: 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