In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
spi: spi-qpic-snand: reallocate BAM transactions
Using the mtd_nandbiterrs module for testing the driver occasionally
results in weird things like below.
- swiotlb mapping fails with the following message:
[ 85.926216] qcom_snand 79b0000.spi: swiotlb buffer is full (sz: 4294967294 bytes), total 512 (slots), used 0 (slots)
[ 85.932937] qcom_snand 79b0000.spi: failure in mapping desc
[ 87.999314] qcom_snand 79b0000.spi: failure to write raw page
[ 87.999352] mtd_nandbiterrs: error: write_oob failed (-110)
Rebooting the board after this causes a panic due to a NULL pointer
dereference.
- If the swiotlb mapping does not fail, rebooting the board may result
in a different panic due to a bad spinlock magic:
[ 256.104459] BUG: spinlock bad magic on CPU#3, procd/2241
[ 256.104488] Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address ffffffff0000049b
...
Investigating the issue revealed that these symptoms are results of
memory corruption which is caused by out of bounds access within the
driver.
The driver uses a dynamically allocated structure for BAM transactions,
which structure must have enough space for all possible variations of
different flash operations initiated by the driver. The required space
heavily depends on the actual number of 'codewords' which is calculated
from the pagesize of the actual NAND chip.
Although the qcom_nandc_alloc() function allocates memory for the BAM
transactions during probe, but since the actual number of 'codewords'
is not yet know the allocation is done for one 'codeword' only.
Because of this, whenever the driver does a flash operation, and the
number of the required transactions exceeds the size of the allocated
arrays the driver accesses memory out of the allocated range.
To avoid this, change the code to free the initially allocated BAM
transactions memory, and allocate a new one once the actual number of
'codewords' required for a given NAND chip is known.
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
- 0.2% 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 fixed version is listed under Patch Availability. 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