gsd-2024-26732
Vulnerability from gsd
Modified
2024-02-20 06:02
Details
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
net: implement lockless setsockopt(SO_PEEK_OFF)
syzbot reported a lockdep violation [1] involving af_unix
support of SO_PEEK_OFF.
Since SO_PEEK_OFF is inherently not thread safe (it uses a per-socket
sk_peek_off field), there is really no point to enforce a pointless
thread safety in the kernel.
After this patch :
- setsockopt(SO_PEEK_OFF) no longer acquires the socket lock.
- skb_consume_udp() no longer has to acquire the socket lock.
- af_unix no longer needs a special version of sk_set_peek_off(),
because it does not lock u->iolock anymore.
As a followup, we could replace prot->set_peek_off to be a boolean
and avoid an indirect call, since we always use sk_set_peek_off().
[1]
WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
6.8.0-rc4-syzkaller-00267-g0f1dd5e91e2b #0 Not tainted
syz-executor.2/30025 is trying to acquire lock:
ffff8880765e7d80 (&u->iolock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: unix_set_peek_off+0x26/0xa0 net/unix/af_unix.c:789
but task is already holding lock:
ffff8880765e7930 (sk_lock-AF_UNIX){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: lock_sock include/net/sock.h:1691 [inline]
ffff8880765e7930 (sk_lock-AF_UNIX){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: sockopt_lock_sock net/core/sock.c:1060 [inline]
ffff8880765e7930 (sk_lock-AF_UNIX){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: sk_setsockopt+0xe52/0x3360 net/core/sock.c:1193
which lock already depends on the new lock.
the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
-> #1 (sk_lock-AF_UNIX){+.+.}-{0:0}:
lock_acquire+0x1e3/0x530 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5754
lock_sock_nested+0x48/0x100 net/core/sock.c:3524
lock_sock include/net/sock.h:1691 [inline]
__unix_dgram_recvmsg+0x1275/0x12c0 net/unix/af_unix.c:2415
sock_recvmsg_nosec+0x18e/0x1d0 net/socket.c:1046
____sys_recvmsg+0x3c0/0x470 net/socket.c:2801
___sys_recvmsg net/socket.c:2845 [inline]
do_recvmmsg+0x474/0xae0 net/socket.c:2939
__sys_recvmmsg net/socket.c:3018 [inline]
__do_sys_recvmmsg net/socket.c:3041 [inline]
__se_sys_recvmmsg net/socket.c:3034 [inline]
__x64_sys_recvmmsg+0x199/0x250 net/socket.c:3034
do_syscall_64+0xf9/0x240
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x6f/0x77
-> #0 (&u->iolock){+.+.}-{3:3}:
check_prev_add kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3134 [inline]
check_prevs_add kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3253 [inline]
validate_chain+0x18ca/0x58e0 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3869
__lock_acquire+0x1345/0x1fd0 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5137
lock_acquire+0x1e3/0x530 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5754
__mutex_lock_common kernel/locking/mutex.c:608 [inline]
__mutex_lock+0x136/0xd70 kernel/locking/mutex.c:752
unix_set_peek_off+0x26/0xa0 net/unix/af_unix.c:789
sk_setsockopt+0x207e/0x3360
do_sock_setsockopt+0x2fb/0x720 net/socket.c:2307
__sys_setsockopt+0x1ad/0x250 net/socket.c:2334
__do_sys_setsockopt net/socket.c:2343 [inline]
__se_sys_setsockopt net/socket.c:2340 [inline]
__x64_sys_setsockopt+0xb5/0xd0 net/socket.c:2340
do_syscall_64+0xf9/0x240
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x6f/0x77
other info that might help us debug this:
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0 CPU1
---- ----
lock(sk_lock-AF_UNIX);
lock(&u->iolock);
lock(sk_lock-AF_UNIX);
lock(&u->iolock);
*** DEADLOCK ***
1 lock held by syz-executor.2/30025:
#0: ffff8880765e7930 (sk_lock-AF_UNIX){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: lock_sock include/net/sock.h:1691 [inline]
#0: ffff8880765e7930 (sk_lock-AF_UNIX){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: sockopt_lock_sock net/core/sock.c:1060 [inline]
#0: ffff8880765e7930 (sk_lock-AF_UNIX){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: sk_setsockopt+0xe52/0x3360 net/core/sock.c:1193
stack backtrace:
CPU: 0 PID: 30025 Comm: syz-executor.2 Not tainted 6.8.0-rc4-syzkaller-00267-g0f1dd5e91e2b #0
Hardware name: Google Google C
---truncated---
Aliases
{
"gsd": {
"metadata": {
"exploitCode": "unknown",
"remediation": "unknown",
"reportConfidence": "confirmed",
"type": "vulnerability"
},
"osvSchema": {
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-26732"
],
"details": "In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:\n\nnet: implement lockless setsockopt(SO_PEEK_OFF)\n\nsyzbot reported a lockdep violation [1] involving af_unix\nsupport of SO_PEEK_OFF.\n\nSince SO_PEEK_OFF is inherently not thread safe (it uses a per-socket\nsk_peek_off field), there is really no point to enforce a pointless\nthread safety in the kernel.\n\nAfter this patch :\n\n- setsockopt(SO_PEEK_OFF) no longer acquires the socket lock.\n\n- skb_consume_udp() no longer has to acquire the socket lock.\n\n- af_unix no longer needs a special version of sk_set_peek_off(),\n because it does not lock u-\u003eiolock anymore.\n\nAs a followup, we could replace prot-\u003eset_peek_off to be a boolean\nand avoid an indirect call, since we always use sk_set_peek_off().\n\n[1]\n\nWARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected\n6.8.0-rc4-syzkaller-00267-g0f1dd5e91e2b #0 Not tainted\n\nsyz-executor.2/30025 is trying to acquire lock:\n ffff8880765e7d80 (\u0026u-\u003eiolock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: unix_set_peek_off+0x26/0xa0 net/unix/af_unix.c:789\n\nbut task is already holding lock:\n ffff8880765e7930 (sk_lock-AF_UNIX){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: lock_sock include/net/sock.h:1691 [inline]\n ffff8880765e7930 (sk_lock-AF_UNIX){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: sockopt_lock_sock net/core/sock.c:1060 [inline]\n ffff8880765e7930 (sk_lock-AF_UNIX){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: sk_setsockopt+0xe52/0x3360 net/core/sock.c:1193\n\nwhich lock already depends on the new lock.\n\nthe existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:\n\n-\u003e #1 (sk_lock-AF_UNIX){+.+.}-{0:0}:\n lock_acquire+0x1e3/0x530 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5754\n lock_sock_nested+0x48/0x100 net/core/sock.c:3524\n lock_sock include/net/sock.h:1691 [inline]\n __unix_dgram_recvmsg+0x1275/0x12c0 net/unix/af_unix.c:2415\n sock_recvmsg_nosec+0x18e/0x1d0 net/socket.c:1046\n ____sys_recvmsg+0x3c0/0x470 net/socket.c:2801\n ___sys_recvmsg net/socket.c:2845 [inline]\n do_recvmmsg+0x474/0xae0 net/socket.c:2939\n __sys_recvmmsg net/socket.c:3018 [inline]\n __do_sys_recvmmsg net/socket.c:3041 [inline]\n __se_sys_recvmmsg net/socket.c:3034 [inline]\n __x64_sys_recvmmsg+0x199/0x250 net/socket.c:3034\n do_syscall_64+0xf9/0x240\n entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x6f/0x77\n\n-\u003e #0 (\u0026u-\u003eiolock){+.+.}-{3:3}:\n check_prev_add kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3134 [inline]\n check_prevs_add kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3253 [inline]\n validate_chain+0x18ca/0x58e0 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3869\n __lock_acquire+0x1345/0x1fd0 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5137\n lock_acquire+0x1e3/0x530 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5754\n __mutex_lock_common kernel/locking/mutex.c:608 [inline]\n __mutex_lock+0x136/0xd70 kernel/locking/mutex.c:752\n unix_set_peek_off+0x26/0xa0 net/unix/af_unix.c:789\n sk_setsockopt+0x207e/0x3360\n do_sock_setsockopt+0x2fb/0x720 net/socket.c:2307\n __sys_setsockopt+0x1ad/0x250 net/socket.c:2334\n __do_sys_setsockopt net/socket.c:2343 [inline]\n __se_sys_setsockopt net/socket.c:2340 [inline]\n __x64_sys_setsockopt+0xb5/0xd0 net/socket.c:2340\n do_syscall_64+0xf9/0x240\n entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x6f/0x77\n\nother info that might help us debug this:\n\n Possible unsafe locking scenario:\n\n CPU0 CPU1\n ---- ----\n lock(sk_lock-AF_UNIX);\n lock(\u0026u-\u003eiolock);\n lock(sk_lock-AF_UNIX);\n lock(\u0026u-\u003eiolock);\n\n *** DEADLOCK ***\n\n1 lock held by syz-executor.2/30025:\n #0: ffff8880765e7930 (sk_lock-AF_UNIX){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: lock_sock include/net/sock.h:1691 [inline]\n #0: ffff8880765e7930 (sk_lock-AF_UNIX){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: sockopt_lock_sock net/core/sock.c:1060 [inline]\n #0: ffff8880765e7930 (sk_lock-AF_UNIX){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: sk_setsockopt+0xe52/0x3360 net/core/sock.c:1193\n\nstack backtrace:\nCPU: 0 PID: 30025 Comm: syz-executor.2 Not tainted 6.8.0-rc4-syzkaller-00267-g0f1dd5e91e2b #0\nHardware name: Google Google C\n---truncated---",
"id": "GSD-2024-26732",
"modified": "2024-02-20T06:02:29.080443Z",
"schema_version": "1.4.0"
}
},
"namespaces": {
"cve.org": {
"CVE_data_meta": {
"ASSIGNER": "cve@kernel.org",
"ID": "CVE-2024-26732",
"STATE": "PUBLIC"
},
"affects": {
"vendor": {
"vendor_data": [
{
"product": {
"product_data": [
{
"product_name": "Linux",
"version": {
"version_data": [
{
"version_affected": "\u003c",
"version_name": "859051dd165e",
"version_value": "897f75e2cde8"
},
{
"version_value": "not down converted",
"x_cve_json_5_version_data": {
"defaultStatus": "affected",
"versions": [
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "6.7"
},
{
"lessThan": "6.7",
"status": "unaffected",
"version": "0",
"versionType": "custom"
},
{
"lessThanOrEqual": "6.7.*",
"status": "unaffected",
"version": "6.7.7",
"versionType": "custom"
},
{
"lessThanOrEqual": "*",
"status": "unaffected",
"version": "6.8",
"versionType": "original_commit_for_fix"
}
]
}
}
]
}
}
]
},
"vendor_name": "Linux"
}
]
}
},
"data_format": "MITRE",
"data_type": "CVE",
"data_version": "4.0",
"description": {
"description_data": [
{
"lang": "eng",
"value": "In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:\n\nnet: implement lockless setsockopt(SO_PEEK_OFF)\n\nsyzbot reported a lockdep violation [1] involving af_unix\nsupport of SO_PEEK_OFF.\n\nSince SO_PEEK_OFF is inherently not thread safe (it uses a per-socket\nsk_peek_off field), there is really no point to enforce a pointless\nthread safety in the kernel.\n\nAfter this patch :\n\n- setsockopt(SO_PEEK_OFF) no longer acquires the socket lock.\n\n- skb_consume_udp() no longer has to acquire the socket lock.\n\n- af_unix no longer needs a special version of sk_set_peek_off(),\n because it does not lock u-\u003eiolock anymore.\n\nAs a followup, we could replace prot-\u003eset_peek_off to be a boolean\nand avoid an indirect call, since we always use sk_set_peek_off().\n\n[1]\n\nWARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected\n6.8.0-rc4-syzkaller-00267-g0f1dd5e91e2b #0 Not tainted\n\nsyz-executor.2/30025 is trying to acquire lock:\n ffff8880765e7d80 (\u0026u-\u003eiolock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: unix_set_peek_off+0x26/0xa0 net/unix/af_unix.c:789\n\nbut task is already holding lock:\n ffff8880765e7930 (sk_lock-AF_UNIX){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: lock_sock include/net/sock.h:1691 [inline]\n ffff8880765e7930 (sk_lock-AF_UNIX){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: sockopt_lock_sock net/core/sock.c:1060 [inline]\n ffff8880765e7930 (sk_lock-AF_UNIX){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: sk_setsockopt+0xe52/0x3360 net/core/sock.c:1193\n\nwhich lock already depends on the new lock.\n\nthe existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:\n\n-\u003e #1 (sk_lock-AF_UNIX){+.+.}-{0:0}:\n lock_acquire+0x1e3/0x530 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5754\n lock_sock_nested+0x48/0x100 net/core/sock.c:3524\n lock_sock include/net/sock.h:1691 [inline]\n __unix_dgram_recvmsg+0x1275/0x12c0 net/unix/af_unix.c:2415\n sock_recvmsg_nosec+0x18e/0x1d0 net/socket.c:1046\n ____sys_recvmsg+0x3c0/0x470 net/socket.c:2801\n ___sys_recvmsg net/socket.c:2845 [inline]\n do_recvmmsg+0x474/0xae0 net/socket.c:2939\n __sys_recvmmsg net/socket.c:3018 [inline]\n __do_sys_recvmmsg net/socket.c:3041 [inline]\n __se_sys_recvmmsg net/socket.c:3034 [inline]\n __x64_sys_recvmmsg+0x199/0x250 net/socket.c:3034\n do_syscall_64+0xf9/0x240\n entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x6f/0x77\n\n-\u003e #0 (\u0026u-\u003eiolock){+.+.}-{3:3}:\n check_prev_add kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3134 [inline]\n check_prevs_add kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3253 [inline]\n validate_chain+0x18ca/0x58e0 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3869\n __lock_acquire+0x1345/0x1fd0 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5137\n lock_acquire+0x1e3/0x530 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5754\n __mutex_lock_common kernel/locking/mutex.c:608 [inline]\n __mutex_lock+0x136/0xd70 kernel/locking/mutex.c:752\n unix_set_peek_off+0x26/0xa0 net/unix/af_unix.c:789\n sk_setsockopt+0x207e/0x3360\n do_sock_setsockopt+0x2fb/0x720 net/socket.c:2307\n __sys_setsockopt+0x1ad/0x250 net/socket.c:2334\n __do_sys_setsockopt net/socket.c:2343 [inline]\n __se_sys_setsockopt net/socket.c:2340 [inline]\n __x64_sys_setsockopt+0xb5/0xd0 net/socket.c:2340\n do_syscall_64+0xf9/0x240\n entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x6f/0x77\n\nother info that might help us debug this:\n\n Possible unsafe locking scenario:\n\n CPU0 CPU1\n ---- ----\n lock(sk_lock-AF_UNIX);\n lock(\u0026u-\u003eiolock);\n lock(sk_lock-AF_UNIX);\n lock(\u0026u-\u003eiolock);\n\n *** DEADLOCK ***\n\n1 lock held by syz-executor.2/30025:\n #0: ffff8880765e7930 (sk_lock-AF_UNIX){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: lock_sock include/net/sock.h:1691 [inline]\n #0: ffff8880765e7930 (sk_lock-AF_UNIX){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: sockopt_lock_sock net/core/sock.c:1060 [inline]\n #0: ffff8880765e7930 (sk_lock-AF_UNIX){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: sk_setsockopt+0xe52/0x3360 net/core/sock.c:1193\n\nstack backtrace:\nCPU: 0 PID: 30025 Comm: syz-executor.2 Not tainted 6.8.0-rc4-syzkaller-00267-g0f1dd5e91e2b #0\nHardware name: Google Google C\n---truncated---"
}
]
},
"generator": {
"engine": "bippy-d3b290d2becc"
},
"problemtype": {
"problemtype_data": [
{
"description": [
{
"lang": "eng",
"value": "n/a"
}
]
}
]
},
"references": {
"reference_data": [
{
"name": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/897f75e2cde8a5f9f7529b55249af1fa4248c83b",
"refsource": "MISC",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/897f75e2cde8a5f9f7529b55249af1fa4248c83b"
},
{
"name": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/56667da7399eb19af857e30f41bea89aa6fa812c",
"refsource": "MISC",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/56667da7399eb19af857e30f41bea89aa6fa812c"
}
]
}
},
"nvd.nist.gov": {
"cve": {
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:\n\nnet: implement lockless setsockopt(SO_PEEK_OFF)\n\nsyzbot reported a lockdep violation [1] involving af_unix\nsupport of SO_PEEK_OFF.\n\nSince SO_PEEK_OFF is inherently not thread safe (it uses a per-socket\nsk_peek_off field), there is really no point to enforce a pointless\nthread safety in the kernel.\n\nAfter this patch :\n\n- setsockopt(SO_PEEK_OFF) no longer acquires the socket lock.\n\n- skb_consume_udp() no longer has to acquire the socket lock.\n\n- af_unix no longer needs a special version of sk_set_peek_off(),\n because it does not lock u-\u003eiolock anymore.\n\nAs a followup, we could replace prot-\u003eset_peek_off to be a boolean\nand avoid an indirect call, since we always use sk_set_peek_off().\n\n[1]\n\nWARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected\n6.8.0-rc4-syzkaller-00267-g0f1dd5e91e2b #0 Not tainted\n\nsyz-executor.2/30025 is trying to acquire lock:\n ffff8880765e7d80 (\u0026u-\u003eiolock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: unix_set_peek_off+0x26/0xa0 net/unix/af_unix.c:789\n\nbut task is already holding lock:\n ffff8880765e7930 (sk_lock-AF_UNIX){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: lock_sock include/net/sock.h:1691 [inline]\n ffff8880765e7930 (sk_lock-AF_UNIX){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: sockopt_lock_sock net/core/sock.c:1060 [inline]\n ffff8880765e7930 (sk_lock-AF_UNIX){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: sk_setsockopt+0xe52/0x3360 net/core/sock.c:1193\n\nwhich lock already depends on the new lock.\n\nthe existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:\n\n-\u003e #1 (sk_lock-AF_UNIX){+.+.}-{0:0}:\n lock_acquire+0x1e3/0x530 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5754\n lock_sock_nested+0x48/0x100 net/core/sock.c:3524\n lock_sock include/net/sock.h:1691 [inline]\n __unix_dgram_recvmsg+0x1275/0x12c0 net/unix/af_unix.c:2415\n sock_recvmsg_nosec+0x18e/0x1d0 net/socket.c:1046\n ____sys_recvmsg+0x3c0/0x470 net/socket.c:2801\n ___sys_recvmsg net/socket.c:2845 [inline]\n do_recvmmsg+0x474/0xae0 net/socket.c:2939\n __sys_recvmmsg net/socket.c:3018 [inline]\n __do_sys_recvmmsg net/socket.c:3041 [inline]\n __se_sys_recvmmsg net/socket.c:3034 [inline]\n __x64_sys_recvmmsg+0x199/0x250 net/socket.c:3034\n do_syscall_64+0xf9/0x240\n entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x6f/0x77\n\n-\u003e #0 (\u0026u-\u003eiolock){+.+.}-{3:3}:\n check_prev_add kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3134 [inline]\n check_prevs_add kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3253 [inline]\n validate_chain+0x18ca/0x58e0 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3869\n __lock_acquire+0x1345/0x1fd0 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5137\n lock_acquire+0x1e3/0x530 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5754\n __mutex_lock_common kernel/locking/mutex.c:608 [inline]\n __mutex_lock+0x136/0xd70 kernel/locking/mutex.c:752\n unix_set_peek_off+0x26/0xa0 net/unix/af_unix.c:789\n sk_setsockopt+0x207e/0x3360\n do_sock_setsockopt+0x2fb/0x720 net/socket.c:2307\n __sys_setsockopt+0x1ad/0x250 net/socket.c:2334\n __do_sys_setsockopt net/socket.c:2343 [inline]\n __se_sys_setsockopt net/socket.c:2340 [inline]\n __x64_sys_setsockopt+0xb5/0xd0 net/socket.c:2340\n do_syscall_64+0xf9/0x240\n entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x6f/0x77\n\nother info that might help us debug this:\n\n Possible unsafe locking scenario:\n\n CPU0 CPU1\n ---- ----\n lock(sk_lock-AF_UNIX);\n lock(\u0026u-\u003eiolock);\n lock(sk_lock-AF_UNIX);\n lock(\u0026u-\u003eiolock);\n\n *** DEADLOCK ***\n\n1 lock held by syz-executor.2/30025:\n #0: ffff8880765e7930 (sk_lock-AF_UNIX){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: lock_sock include/net/sock.h:1691 [inline]\n #0: ffff8880765e7930 (sk_lock-AF_UNIX){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: sockopt_lock_sock net/core/sock.c:1060 [inline]\n #0: ffff8880765e7930 (sk_lock-AF_UNIX){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: sk_setsockopt+0xe52/0x3360 net/core/sock.c:1193\n\nstack backtrace:\nCPU: 0 PID: 30025 Comm: syz-executor.2 Not tainted 6.8.0-rc4-syzkaller-00267-g0f1dd5e91e2b #0\nHardware name: Google Google C\n---truncated---"
}
],
"id": "CVE-2024-26732",
"lastModified": "2024-04-03T17:24:18.150",
"metrics": {},
"published": "2024-04-03T17:15:50.977",
"references": [
{
"source": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/56667da7399eb19af857e30f41bea89aa6fa812c"
},
{
"source": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/897f75e2cde8a5f9f7529b55249af1fa4248c83b"
}
],
"sourceIdentifier": "416baaa9-dc9f-4396-8d5f-8c081fb06d67",
"vulnStatus": "Awaiting Analysis"
}
}
}
}
Loading...
Loading...
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or seen somewhere by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability is confirmed from an analyst perspective.
- Exploited: This vulnerability was exploited and seen by the user reporting the sighting.
- Patched: This vulnerability was successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.
- Not exploited: This vulnerability was not exploited or seen by the user reporting the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expresses doubt about the veracity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: This vulnerability was not successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.