In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
interconnect: Don't access req_list while it's being manipulated
The icc_lock mutex was split into separate icc_lock and icc_bw_lock
mutexes in [1] to avoid lockdep splats. However, this didn't adequately
protect access to icc_node::req_list.
The icc_set_bw() function will eventually iterate over req_list while
only holding icc_bw_lock, but req_list can be modified while only
holding icc_lock. This causes races between icc_set_bw(), of_icc_get(),
and icc_put().
Example A:
CPU0 CPU1
---- ----
icc_set_bw(path_a)
mutex_lock(&icc_bw_lock);
icc_put(path_b)
mutex_lock(&icc_lock);
aggregate_requests()
hlist_for_each_entry(r, ...
hlist_del(...
Example B:
CPU0 CPU1
---- ----
icc_set_bw(path_a)
mutex_lock(&icc_bw_lock);
path_b = of_icc_get()
of_icc_get_by_index()
mutex_lock(&icc_lock);
path_find()
path_init()
aggregate_requests()
hlist_for_each_entry(r, ...
hlist_add_head(...
Fix this by ensuring icc_bw_lock is always held before manipulating
icc_node::req_list. The additional places icc_bw_lock is held don't
perform any memory allocations, so we should still be safe from the
original lockdep splats that motivated the separate locks.
[1] commit af42269c3523 ("interconnect: Fix locking for runpm vs reclaim")
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (6.3): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 6.3 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 6.3 MEDIUMCVSS-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