In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
powerpc: Fix virt_addr_valid() for 64-bit Book3E & 32-bit
mpe: On 64-bit Book3E vmalloc space starts at 0x8000000000000000.
Because of the way __pa() works we have:
__pa(0x8000000000000000) == 0, and therefore
virt_to_pfn(0x8000000000000000) == 0, and therefore
virt_addr_valid(0x8000000000000000) == true
Which is wrong, virt_addr_valid() should be false for vmalloc space.
In fact all vmalloc addresses that alias with a valid PFN will return
true from virt_addr_valid(). That can cause bugs with hardened usercopy
as described below by Kefeng Wang:
When running ethtool eth0 on 64-bit Book3E, a BUG occurred:
usercopy: Kernel memory exposure attempt detected from SLUB object not in SLUB page?! (offset 0, size 1048)!
kernel BUG at mm/usercopy.c:99
...
usercopy_abort+0x64/0xa0 (unreliable)
__check_heap_object+0x168/0x190
__check_object_size+0x1a0/0x200
dev_ethtool+0x2494/0x2b20
dev_ioctl+0x5d0/0x770
sock_do_ioctl+0xf0/0x1d0
sock_ioctl+0x3ec/0x5a0
__se_sys_ioctl+0xf0/0x160
system_call_exception+0xfc/0x1f0
system_call_common+0xf8/0x200
The code shows below,
data = vzalloc(array_size(gstrings.len, ETH_GSTRING_LEN));
copy_to_user(useraddr, data, gstrings.len * ETH_GSTRING_LEN))
The data is alloced by vmalloc(), virt_addr_valid(ptr) will return true
on 64-bit Book3E, which leads to the panic.
As commit 4dd7554a6456 ("powerpc/64: Add VIRTUAL_BUG_ON checks for __va
and __pa addresses") does, make sure the virt addr above PAGE_OFFSET in
the virt_addr_valid() for 64-bit, also add upper limit check to make
sure the virt is below high_memory.
Meanwhile, for 32-bit PAGE_OFFSET is the virtual address of the start
of lowmem, high_memory is the upper low virtual address, the check is
suitable for 32-bit, this will fix the issue mentioned in commit
602946ec2f90 ("powerpc: Set max_mapnr correctly") too.
On 32-bit there is a similar problem with high memory, that was fixed in
commit 602946ec2f90 ("powerpc: Set max_mapnr correctly"), but that
commit breaks highmem and needs to be reverted.
We can't easily fix __pa(), we have code that relies on its current
behaviour. So for now add extra checks to virt_addr_valid().
For 64-bit Book3S the extra checks are not necessary, the combination of
virt_to_pfn() and pfn_valid() should yield the correct result, but they
are harmless.
[mpe: Add additional change log detail]
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
- 0.3% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-25). 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