In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
perf: Avoid undefined behavior from stopping/starting inactive events
Calling pmu->start()/stop() on perf events in PERF_EVENT_STATE_OFF can
leave event->hw.idx at -1. When PMU drivers later attempt to use this
negative index as a shift exponent in bitwise operations, it leads to UBSAN
shift-out-of-bounds reports.
The issue is a logical flaw in how event groups handle throttling when some
members are intentionally disabled. Based on the analysis and the
reproducer provided by Mark Rutland (this issue on both arm64 and x86-64).
The scenario unfolds as follows:
- A group leader event is configured with a very aggressive sampling
period (e.g., sample_period = 1). This causes frequent interrupts and
triggers the throttling mechanism.
- A child event in the same group is created in a disabled state
(.disabled = 1). This event remains in PERF_EVENT_STATE_OFF.
Since it hasn't been scheduled onto the PMU, its event->hw.idx remains
initialized at -1.
- When throttling occurs, perf_event_throttle_group() and later
perf_event_unthrottle_group() iterate through all siblings, including
the disabled child event.
- perf_event_throttle()/unthrottle() are called on this inactive child
event, which then call event->pmu->start()/stop().
- The PMU driver receives the event with hw.idx == -1 and attempts to
use it as a shift exponent. e.g., in macros like PMCNTENSET(idx),
leading to the UBSAN report.
The throttling mechanism attempts to start/stop events that are not
actively scheduled on the hardware.
Move the state check into perf_event_throttle()/perf_event_unthrottle() so
that inactive events are skipped entirely. This ensures only active events
with a valid hw.idx are processed, preventing undefined behavior and
silencing UBSAN warnings. The corrected check ensures true before
proceeding with PMU operations.
The problem can be reproduced with the syzkaller reproducer:
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
- 0.2% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-27). 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: 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 (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (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)14 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 total (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