In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
bpf: Fix overloading of MEM_UNINIT's meaning
Lonial reported an issue in the BPF verifier where check_mem_size_reg()
has the following code:
if (!tnum_is_const(reg->var_off))
/* For unprivileged variable accesses, disable raw
* mode so that the program is required to
* initialize all the memory that the helper could
* just partially fill up.
*/
meta = NULL;
This means that writes are not checked when the register containing the
size of the passed buffer has not a fixed size. Through this bug, a BPF
program can write to a map which is marked as read-only, for example,
.rodata global maps.
The problem is that MEM_UNINIT's initial meaning that "the passed buffer
to the BPF helper does not need to be initialized" which was added back
in commit 435faee1aae9 ("bpf, verifier: add ARG_PTR_TO_RAW_STACK type")
got overloaded over time with "the passed buffer is being written to".
The problem however is that checks such as the above which were added later
via 06c1c049721a ("bpf: allow helpers access to variable memory") set meta
to NULL in order force the user to always initialize the passed buffer to
the helper. Due to the current double meaning of MEM_UNINIT, this bypasses
verifier write checks to the memory (not boundary checks though) and only
assumes the latter memory is read instead.
Fix this by reverting MEM_UNINIT back to its original meaning, and having
MEM_WRITE as an annotation to BPF helpers in order to then trigger the
BPF verifier checks for writing to memory.
Some notes: check_arg_pair_ok() ensures that for ARG_CONST_SIZE{,_OR_ZERO}
we can access fn->arg_type[arg - 1] since it must contain a preceding
ARG_PTR_TO_MEM. For check_mem_reg() the meta argument can be removed
altogether since we do check both BPF_READ and BPF_WRITE. Same for the
equivalent check_kfunc_mem_size_reg().
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.1): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.1 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.1 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.2% 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