In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
netfs: Fix race between cache write completion and ALL_QUEUED being set
When netfslib is issuing subrequests, the subrequests start processing
immediately and may complete before we reach the end of the issuing
function. At the end of the issuing function we set NETFS_RREQ_ALL_QUEUED
to indicate to the collector that we aren't going to issue any more subreqs
and that it can do the final notifications and cleanup.
Now, this isn't a problem if the request is synchronous
(NETFS_RREQ_OFFLOAD_COLLECTION is unset) as the result collection will be
done in-thread and we're guaranteed an opportunity to run the collector.
However, if the request is asynchronous, collection is primarily triggered
by the termination of subrequests queuing it on a workqueue. Now, a race
can occur here if the app thread sets ALL_QUEUED after the last subrequest
terminates.
This can happen most easily with the copy2cache code (as used by Ceph)
where, in the collection routine of a read request, an asynchronous write
request is spawned to copy data to the cache. Folios are added to the
write request as they're unlocked, but there may be a delay before
ALL_QUEUED is set as the write subrequests may complete before we get
there.
If all the write subreqs have finished by the ALL_QUEUED point, no further
events happen and the collection never happens, leaving the request
hanging.
Fix this by queuing the collector after setting ALL_QUEUED. This is a bit
heavy-handed and it may be sufficient to do it only if there are no extant
subreqs.
Also add a tracepoint to cross-reference both requests in a copy-to-request
operation and add a trace to the netfs_rreq tracepoint to indicate the
setting of ALL_QUEUED.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (4.7): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 4.7 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 4.7 MEDIUMCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.1% 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