In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
tracing/osnoise: Fix crash in timerlat_dump_stack()
We have observed kernel panics when using timerlat with stack saving,
with the following dmesg output:
memcpy: detected buffer overflow: 88 byte write of buffer size 0
WARNING: CPU: 2 PID: 8153 at lib/string_helpers.c:1032 __fortify_report+0x55/0xa0
CPU: 2 UID: 0 PID: 8153 Comm: timerlatu/2 Kdump: loaded Not tainted 6.15.3-200.fc42.x86_64 #1 PREEMPT(lazy)
Call Trace:
? trace_buffer_lock_reserve+0x2a/0x60
__fortify_panic+0xd/0xf
__timerlat_dump_stack.cold+0xd/0xd
timerlat_dump_stack.part.0+0x47/0x80
timerlat_fd_read+0x36d/0x390
vfs_read+0xe2/0x390
? syscall_exit_to_user_mode+0x1d5/0x210
ksys_read+0x73/0xe0
do_syscall_64+0x7b/0x160
? exc_page_fault+0x7e/0x1a0
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e
__timerlat_dump_stack() constructs the ftrace stack entry like this:
struct stack_entry *entry;
...
memcpy(&entry->caller, fstack->calls, size);
entry->size = fstack->nr_entries;
Since commit e7186af7fb26 ("tracing: Add back FORTIFY_SOURCE logic to
kernel_stack event structure"), struct stack_entry marks its caller
field with __counted_by(size). At the time of the memcpy, entry->size
contains garbage from the ringbuffer, which under some circumstances is
zero, triggering a kernel panic by buffer overflow.
Populate the size field before the memcpy so that the out-of-bounds
check knows the correct size. This is analogous to
__ftrace_trace_stack().
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 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