In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
mm/userfaultfd: fix kmap_local LIFO ordering for CONFIG_HIGHPTE
With CONFIG_HIGHPTE on 32-bit ARM, move_pages_pte() maps PTE pages using
kmap_local_page(), which requires unmapping in Last-In-First-Out order.
The current code maps dst_pte first, then src_pte, but unmaps them in the
same order (dst_pte, src_pte), violating the LIFO requirement. This
causes the warning in kunmap_local_indexed():
WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 604 at mm/highmem.c:622 kunmap_local_indexed+0x178/0x17c
addr \!= __fix_to_virt(FIX_KMAP_BEGIN + idx)
Fix this by reversing the unmap order to respect LIFO ordering.
This issue follows the same pattern as similar fixes:
- commit eca6828403b8 ("crypto: skcipher - fix mismatch between mapping and unmapping order")
- commit 8cf57c6df818 ("nilfs2: eliminate staggered calls to kunmap in nilfs_rename")
Both of which addressed the same fundamental requirement that kmap_local
operations must follow LIFO ordering.
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
- 0.1% 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 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