In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
f2fs: fix to avoid memory leak in f2fs_rename()
syzbot reported a f2fs bug as below:
BUG: memory leak
unreferenced object 0xffff888127f70830 (size 16):
comm "syz.0.23", pid 6144, jiffies 4294943712
hex dump (first 16 bytes):
3c af 57 72 5b e6 8f ad 6e 8e fd 33 42 39 03 ff <.Wr[...n..3B9..
backtrace (crc 925f8a80):
kmemleak_alloc_recursive include/linux/kmemleak.h:44 [inline]
slab_post_alloc_hook mm/slub.c:4520 [inline]
slab_alloc_node mm/slub.c:4844 [inline]
__do_kmalloc_node mm/slub.c:5237 [inline]
__kmalloc_noprof+0x3bd/0x560 mm/slub.c:5250
kmalloc_noprof include/linux/slab.h:954 [inline]
fscrypt_setup_filename+0x15e/0x3b0 fs/crypto/fname.c:364
f2fs_setup_filename+0x52/0xb0 fs/f2fs/dir.c:143
f2fs_rename+0x159/0xca0 fs/f2fs/namei.c:961
f2fs_rename2+0xd5/0xf20 fs/f2fs/namei.c:1308
vfs_rename+0x7ff/0x1250 fs/namei.c:6026
filename_renameat2+0x4f4/0x660 fs/namei.c:6144
__do_sys_renameat2 fs/namei.c:6173 [inline]
__se_sys_renameat2 fs/namei.c:6168 [inline]
__x64_sys_renameat2+0x59/0x80 fs/namei.c:6168
do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:63 [inline]
do_syscall_64+0xe2/0xf80 arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:94
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x77/0x7f
The root cause is in commit 40b2d55e0452 ("f2fs: fix to create selinux
label during whiteout initialization"), we added a call to
f2fs_setup_filename() without a matching call to f2fs_free_filename(),
fix it.
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
- 0.1% 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