In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
bpf: Reject variable offset alu on PTR_TO_FLOW_KEYS
For PTR_TO_FLOW_KEYS, check_flow_keys_access() only uses fixed off
for validation. However, variable offset ptr alu is not prohibited
for this ptr kind. So the variable offset is not checked.
The following prog is accepted:
func#0 @0
0: R1=ctx() R10=fp0
0: (bf) r6 = r1 ; R1=ctx() R6_w=ctx()
1: (79) r7 = *(u64 *)(r6 +144) ; R6_w=ctx() R7_w=flow_keys()
2: (b7) r8 = 1024 ; R8_w=1024
3: (37) r8 /= 1 ; R8_w=scalar()
4: (57) r8 &= 1024 ; R8_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,
smax=umax=smax32=umax32=1024,var_off=(0x0; 0x400))
5: (0f) r7 += r8
mark_precise: frame0: last_idx 5 first_idx 0 subseq_idx -1
mark_precise: frame0: regs=r8 stack= before 4: (57) r8 &= 1024
mark_precise: frame0: regs=r8 stack= before 3: (37) r8 /= 1
mark_precise: frame0: regs=r8 stack= before 2: (b7) r8 = 1024
6: R7_w=flow_keys(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=1024,var_off
=(0x0; 0x400)) R8_w=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=1024,
var_off=(0x0; 0x400))
6: (79) r0 = *(u64 *)(r7 +0) ; R0_w=scalar()
7: (95) exit
This prog loads flow_keys to r7, and adds the variable offset r8
to r7, and finally causes out-of-bounds access:
BUG: unable to handle page fault for address: ffffc90014c80038
[...]
Call Trace:
bpf_dispatcher_nop_func include/linux/bpf.h:1231 [inline]
__bpf_prog_run include/linux/filter.h:651 [inline]
bpf_prog_run include/linux/filter.h:658 [inline]
bpf_prog_run_pin_on_cpu include/linux/filter.h:675 [inline]
bpf_flow_dissect+0x15f/0x350 net/core/flow_dissector.c:991
bpf_prog_test_run_flow_dissector+0x39d/0x620 net/bpf/test_run.c:1359
bpf_prog_test_run kernel/bpf/syscall.c:4107 [inline]
__sys_bpf+0xf8f/0x4560 kernel/bpf/syscall.c:5475
__do_sys_bpf kernel/bpf/syscall.c:5561 [inline]
__se_sys_bpf kernel/bpf/syscall.c:5559 [inline]
__x64_sys_bpf+0x73/0xb0 kernel/bpf/syscall.c:5559
do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:52 [inline]
do_syscall_64+0x3f/0x110 arch/x86/entry/common.c:83
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0x6b
Fix this by rejecting ptr alu with variable offset on flow_keys.
Applying the patch rejects the program with "R7 pointer arithmetic
on flow_keys prohibited".
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 every mission impact level.CISA BOD 26-04: 60 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 every mission impact level.
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (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)60 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 Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). 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