In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
kcm: fix zero-frag skb in frag_list on partial sendmsg error
Syzkaller reported a warning in kcm_write_msgs() when processing a
message with a zero-fragment skb in the frag_list.
When kcm_sendmsg() fills MAX_SKB_FRAGS fragments in the current skb,
it allocates a new skb (tskb) and links it into the frag_list before
copying data. If the copy subsequently fails (e.g. -EFAULT from
user memory), tskb remains in the frag_list with zero fragments:
head skb (msg being assembled, NOT yet in sk_write_queue)
+-----------+
| frags[17] | (MAX_SKB_FRAGS, all filled with data)
| frag_list-+--> tskb
+-----------+ +----------+
| frags[0] | (empty! copy failed before filling)
+----------+
For SOCK_SEQPACKET with partial data already copied, the error path
saves this message via partial_message for later completion. For
SOCK_SEQPACKET, sock_write_iter() automatically sets MSG_EOR, so a
subsequent zero-length write(fd, NULL, 0) completes the message and
queues it to sk_write_queue. kcm_write_msgs() then walks the
frag_list and hits:
WARN_ON(!skb_shinfo(skb)->nr_frags)
TCP has a similar pattern where skbs are enqueued before data copy
and cleaned up on failure via tcp_remove_empty_skb(). KCM was
missing the equivalent cleanup.
Fix this by tracking the predecessor skb (frag_prev) when allocating
a new frag_list entry. On error, if the tail skb has zero frags,
use frag_prev to unlink and free it in O(1) without walking the
singly-linked frag_list. frag_prev is safe to dereference because
the entire message chain is only held locally (or in kcm->seq_skb)
and is not added to sk_write_queue until MSG_EOR, so the send path
cannot free it underneath us.
Also change the WARN_ON to WARN_ON_ONCE to avoid flooding the log
if the condition is somehow hit repeatedly.
There are currently no KCM selftests in the kernel tree; a simple
reproducer is available at [1].
[1] https://gist.github.com/mrpre/a94d431c757e8d6f168f4dd1a3749daa
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