In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
accel/qaic: Clean up integer overflow checking in map_user_pages()
The encode_dma() function has some validation on in_trans->size but it
would be more clear to move those checks to find_and_map_user_pages().
The encode_dma() had two checks:
if (in_trans->addr + in_trans->size < in_trans->addr || !in_trans->size)
return -EINVAL;
The in_trans->addr variable is the starting address. The in_trans->size
variable is the total size of the transfer. The transfer can occur in
parts and the resources->xferred_dma_size tracks how many bytes we have
already transferred.
This patch introduces a new variable "remaining" which represents the
amount we want to transfer (in_trans->size) minus the amount we have
already transferred (resources->xferred_dma_size).
I have modified the check for if in_trans->size is zero to instead check
if in_trans->size is less than resources->xferred_dma_size. If we have
already transferred more bytes than in_trans->size then there are negative
bytes remaining which doesn't make sense. If there are zero bytes
remaining to be copied, just return success.
The check in encode_dma() checked that "addr + size" could not overflow
and barring a driver bug that should work, but it's easier to check if
we do this in parts. First check that "in_trans->addr +
resources->xferred_dma_size" is safe. Then check that "xfer_start_addr +
remaining" is safe.
My final concern was that we are dealing with u64 values but on 32bit
systems the kmalloc() function will truncate the sizes to 32 bits. So
I calculated "total = in_trans->size + offset_in_page(xfer_start_addr);"
and returned -EINVAL if it were >= SIZE_MAX. This will not affect 64bit
systems.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.8 HIGHCVSS-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 (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-11-04). 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