In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
mm/vma: add give_up_on_oom option on modify/merge, use in uffd release
Currently, if a VMA merge fails due to an OOM condition arising on commit
merge or a failure to duplicate anon_vma's, we report this so the caller
can handle it.
However there are cases where the caller is only ostensibly trying a
merge, and doesn't mind if it fails due to this condition.
Since we do not want to introduce an implicit assumption that we only
actually modify VMAs after OOM conditions might arise, add a 'give up on
oom' option and make an explicit contract that, should this flag be set, we
absolutely will not modify any VMAs should OOM arise and just bail out.
Since it'd be very unusual for a user to try to vma_modify() with this flag
set but be specifying a range within a VMA which ends up being split (which
can fail due to rlimit issues, not only OOM), we add a debug warning for
this condition.
The motivating reason for this is uffd release - syzkaller (and Pedro
Falcato's VERY astute analysis) found a way in which an injected fault on
allocation, triggering an OOM condition on commit merge, would result in
uffd code becoming confused and treating an error value as if it were a VMA
pointer.
To avoid this, we make use of this new VMG flag to ensure that this never
occurs, utilising the fact that, should we be clearing entire VMAs, we do
not wish an OOM event to be reported to us.
Many thanks to Pedro Falcato for his excellent analysis and Jann Horn for
his insightful and intelligent analysis of the situation, both of whom were
instrumental in this fix.
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
- 0.2% 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