In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
x86/mm: Eliminate window where TLB flushes may be inadvertently skipped
tl;dr: There is a window in the mm switching code where the new CR3 is
set and the CPU should be getting TLB flushes for the new mm. But
should_flush_tlb() has a bug and suppresses the flush. Fix it by
widening the window where should_flush_tlb() sends an IPI.
Long Version:
=== History ===
There were a few things leading up to this.
First, updating mm_cpumask() was observed to be too expensive, so it was
made lazier. But being lazy caused too many unnecessary IPIs to CPUs
due to the now-lazy mm_cpumask(). So code was added to cull
mm_cpumask() periodically[2]. But that culling was a bit too aggressive
and skipped sending TLB flushes to CPUs that need them. So here we are
again.
=== Problem ===
The too-aggressive code in should_flush_tlb() strikes in this window:
// Turn on IPIs for this CPU/mm combination, but only
// if should_flush_tlb() agrees:
cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, mm_cpumask(next));
next_tlb_gen = atomic64_read(&next->context.tlb_gen);
choose_new_asid(next, next_tlb_gen, &new_asid, &need_flush);
load_new_mm_cr3(need_flush);
// ^ After 'need_flush' is set to false, IPIs *MUST*
// be sent to this CPU and not be ignored.
this_cpu_write(cpu_tlbstate.loaded_mm, next);
// ^ Not until this point does should_flush_tlb()
// become true!
should_flush_tlb() will suppress TLB flushes between load_new_mm_cr3()
and writing to 'loaded_mm', which is a window where they should not be
suppressed. Whoops.
=== Solution ===
Thankfully, the fuzzy "just about to write CR3" window is already marked
with loaded_mm==LOADED_MM_SWITCHING. Simply checking for that state in
should_flush_tlb() is sufficient to ensure that the CPU is targeted with
an IPI.
This will cause more TLB flush IPIs. But the window is relatively small
and I do not expect this to cause any kind of measurable performance
impact.
Update the comment where LOADED_MM_SWITCHING is written since it grew
yet another user.
Peter Z also raised a concern that should_flush_tlb() might not observe
'loaded_mm' and 'is_lazy' in the same order that switch_mm_irqs_off()
writes them. Add a barrier to ensure that they are observed in the
order they are written.
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 2026-10-24). 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