In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
perf/core: Prevent VMA split of buffer mappings
The perf mmap code is careful about mmap()'ing the user page with the
ringbuffer and additionally the auxiliary buffer, when the event supports
it. Once the first mapping is established, subsequent mapping have to use
the same offset and the same size in both cases. The reference counting for
the ringbuffer and the auxiliary buffer depends on this being correct.
Though perf does not prevent that a related mapping is split via mmap(2),
munmap(2) or mremap(2). A split of a VMA results in perf_mmap_open() calls,
which take reference counts, but then the subsequent perf_mmap_close()
calls are not longer fulfilling the offset and size checks. This leads to
reference count leaks.
As perf already has the requirement for subsequent mappings to match the
initial mapping, the obvious consequence is that VMA splits, caused by
resizing of a mapping or partial unmapping, have to be prevented.
Implement the vm_operations_struct::may_split() callback and return
unconditionally -EINVAL.
That ensures that the mapping offsets and sizes cannot be changed after the
fact. Remapping to a different fixed address with the same size is still
possible as it takes the references for the new mapping and drops those of
the old mapping.
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
- 0.4% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-11-05). 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, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: 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.
The score's inputs: 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