In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
drm/amdgpu: Fix type of second parameter in odn_edit_dpm_table() callback
With clang's kernel control flow integrity (kCFI, CONFIG_CFI_CLANG),
indirect call targets are validated against the expected function
pointer prototype to make sure the call target is valid to help mitigate
ROP attacks. If they are not identical, there is a failure at run time,
which manifests as either a kernel panic or thread getting killed. A
proposed warning in clang aims to catch these at compile time, which
reveals:
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../pm/swsmu/amdgpu_smu.c:3008:29: error: incompatible function pointer types initializing 'int (*)(void *, uint32_t, long *, uint32_t)' (aka 'int (*)(void *, unsigned int, long *, unsigned int)') with an expression of type 'int (void *, enum PP_OD_DPM_TABLE_COMMAND, long *, uint32_t)' (aka 'int (void *, enum PP_OD_DPM_TABLE_COMMAND, long *, unsigned int)') [-Werror,-Wincompatible-function-pointer-types-strict]
.odn_edit_dpm_table = smu_od_edit_dpm_table,
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1 error generated.
There are only two implementations of ->odn_edit_dpm_table() in 'struct
amd_pm_funcs': smu_od_edit_dpm_table() and pp_odn_edit_dpm_table(). One
has a second parameter type of 'enum PP_OD_DPM_TABLE_COMMAND' and the
other uses 'u32'. Ultimately, smu_od_edit_dpm_table() calls
->od_edit_dpm_table() from 'struct pptable_funcs' and
pp_odn_edit_dpm_table() calls ->odn_edit_dpm_table() from 'struct
pp_hwmgr_func', which both have a second parameter type of 'enum
PP_OD_DPM_TABLE_COMMAND'.
Update the type parameter in both the prototype in 'struct amd_pm_funcs'
and pp_odn_edit_dpm_table() to 'enum PP_OD_DPM_TABLE_COMMAND', which
cleans up the warning.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
- EG Severity
- Not assessed: no CVSS publishedA missing CVSS is not a severity of zero.
- EG Likelihood
- 0.2% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-26). 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
- No SSVC decision: EchelonGraph has not assessed this CVECISA 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 BOD 26-04 block below.
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