In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
mm: cachestat: fix two shmem bugs
When cachestat on shmem races with swapping and invalidation, there
are two possible bugs:
1) A swapin error can have resulted in a poisoned swap entry in the
shmem inode's xarray. Calling get_shadow_from_swap_cache() on it
will result in an out-of-bounds access to swapper_spaces[].
Validate the entry with non_swap_entry() before going further.
2) When we find a valid swap entry in the shmem's inode, the shadow
entry in the swapcache might not exist yet: swap IO is still in
progress and we're before __remove_mapping; swapin, invalidation,
or swapoff have removed the shadow from swapcache after we saw the
shmem swap entry.
This will send a NULL to workingset_test_recent(). The latter
purely operates on pointer bits, so it won't crash - node 0, memcg
ID 0, eviction timestamp 0, etc. are all valid inputs - but it's a
bogus test. In theory that could result in a false "recently
evicted" count.
Such a false positive wouldn't be the end of the world. But for
code clarity and (future) robustness, be explicit about this case.
Bail on get_shadow_from_swap_cache() returning NULL.
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.NVD CVSS v3 · CVSS v3.0 or v3.1
- EG Likelihood
- 0.7% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-17). 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 every mission impact level.CISA BOD 26-04: 60 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at every mission impact level.
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (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)60 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). 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