In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
cnic: Fix use-after-free bugs in cnic_delete_task
The original code uses cancel_delayed_work() in cnic_cm_stop_bnx2x_hw(),
which does not guarantee that the delayed work item 'delete_task' has
fully completed if it was already running. Additionally, the delayed work
item is cyclic, the flush_workqueue() in cnic_cm_stop_bnx2x_hw() only
blocks and waits for work items that were already queued to the
workqueue prior to its invocation. Any work items submitted after
flush_workqueue() is called are not included in the set of tasks that the
flush operation awaits. This means that after the cyclic work items have
finished executing, a delayed work item may still exist in the workqueue.
This leads to use-after-free scenarios where the cnic_dev is deallocated
by cnic_free_dev(), while delete_task remains active and attempt to
dereference cnic_dev in cnic_delete_task().
A typical race condition is illustrated below:
CPU 0 (cleanup) | CPU 1 (delayed work callback)
cnic_netdev_event() |
cnic_stop_hw() | cnic_delete_task()
cnic_cm_stop_bnx2x_hw() | ...
cancel_delayed_work() | /* the queue_delayed_work()
flush_workqueue() | executes after flush_workqueue()*/
| queue_delayed_work()
cnic_free_dev(dev)//free | cnic_delete_task() //new instance
| dev = cp->dev; //use
Replace cancel_delayed_work() with cancel_delayed_work_sync() to ensure
that the cyclic delayed work item is properly canceled and that any
ongoing execution of the work item completes before the cnic_dev is
deallocated. Furthermore, since cancel_delayed_work_sync() uses
__flush_work(work, true) to synchronously wait for any currently
executing instance of the work item to finish, the flush_workqueue()
becomes redundant and should be removed.
This bug was identified through static analysis. To reproduce the issue
and validate the fix, I simulated the cnic PCI device in QEMU and
introduced intentional delays — such as inserting calls to ssleep()
within the cnic_delete_task() function — to increase the likelihood
of triggering the bug.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.8 HIGHCVSS-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 (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (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; 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 total (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