In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
rxrpc: Fix recv-recv race of completed call
If a call receives an event (such as incoming data), the call gets placed
on the socket's queue and a thread in recvmsg can be awakened to go and
process it. Once the thread has picked up the call off of the queue,
further events will cause it to be requeued, and once the socket lock is
dropped (recvmsg uses call->user_mutex to allow the socket to be used in
parallel), a second thread can come in and its recvmsg can pop the call off
the socket queue again.
In such a case, the first thread will be receiving stuff from the call and
the second thread will be blocked on call->user_mutex. The first thread
can, at this point, process both the event that it picked call for and the
event that the second thread picked the call for and may see the call
terminate - in which case the call will be "released", decoupling the call
from the user call ID assigned to it (RXRPC_USER_CALL_ID in the control
message).
The first thread will return okay, but then the second thread will wake up
holding the user_mutex and, if it sees that the call has been released by
the first thread, it will BUG thusly:
kernel BUG at net/rxrpc/recvmsg.c:474!
Fix this by just dequeuing the call and ignoring it if it is seen to be
already released. We can't tell userspace about it anyway as the user call
ID has become stale.
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
- 0.3% 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; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days 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; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable yes (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)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days if it is not.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable yes (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