In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
block/rq_qos: protect rq_qos apis with a new lock
commit 50e34d78815e ("block: disable the elevator int del_gendisk")
move rq_qos_exit() from disk_release() to del_gendisk(), this will
introduce some problems:
1) If rq_qos_add() is triggered by enabling iocost/iolatency through
cgroupfs, then it can concurrent with del_gendisk(), it's not safe to
write 'q->rq_qos' concurrently.
2) Activate cgroup policy that is relied on rq_qos will call
rq_qos_add() and blkcg_activate_policy(), and if rq_qos_exit() is
called in the middle, null-ptr-dereference will be triggered in
blkcg_activate_policy().
3) blkg_conf_open_bdev() can call blkdev_get_no_open() first to find the
disk, then if rq_qos_exit() from del_gendisk() is done before
rq_qos_add(), then memory will be leaked.
This patch add a new disk level mutex 'rq_qos_mutex':
1) The lock will protect rq_qos_exit() directly.
2) For wbt that doesn't relied on blk-cgroup, rq_qos_add() can only be
called from disk initialization for now because wbt can't be
destructed until rq_qos_exit(), so it's safe not to protect wbt for
now. Hoever, in case that rq_qos dynamically destruction is supported
in the furture, this patch also protect rq_qos_add() from wbt_init()
directly, this is enough because blk-sysfs already synchronize
writers with disk removal.
3) For iocost and iolatency, in order to synchronize disk removal and
cgroup configuration, the lock is held after blkdev_get_no_open()
from blkg_conf_open_bdev(), and is released in blkg_conf_exit().
In order to fix the above memory leak, disk_live() is checked after
holding the new lock.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.8 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.2% 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