In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
riscv, bpf: Sign extend struct ops return values properly
The ns_bpf_qdisc selftest triggers a kernel panic:
Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address ffffffffa38dbf58
Current test_progs pgtable: 4K pagesize, 57-bit VAs, pgdp=0x00000001109cc000
[ffffffffa38dbf58] pgd=000000011fffd801, p4d=000000011fffd401, pud=000000011fffd001, pmd=0000000000000000
Oops [#1]
Modules linked in: bpf_testmod(OE) xt_conntrack nls_iso8859_1 [...] [last unloaded: bpf_testmod(OE)]
CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 23584 Comm: test_progs Tainted: G W OE 6.17.0-rc1-g2465bb83e0b4 #1 NONE
Tainted: [W]=WARN, [O]=OOT_MODULE, [E]=UNSIGNED_MODULE
Hardware name: Unknown Unknown Product/Unknown Product, BIOS 2024.01+dfsg-1ubuntu5.1 01/01/2024
epc : __qdisc_run+0x82/0x6f0
ra : __qdisc_run+0x6e/0x6f0
epc : ffffffff80bd5c7a ra : ffffffff80bd5c66 sp : ff2000000eecb550
gp : ffffffff82472098 tp : ff60000096895940 t0 : ffffffff8001f180
t1 : ffffffff801e1664 t2 : 0000000000000000 s0 : ff2000000eecb5d0
s1 : ff60000093a6a600 a0 : ffffffffa38dbee8 a1 : 0000000000000001
a2 : ff2000000eecb510 a3 : 0000000000000001 a4 : 0000000000000000
a5 : 0000000000000010 a6 : 0000000000000000 a7 : 0000000000735049
s2 : ffffffffa38dbee8 s3 : 0000000000000040 s4 : ff6000008bcda000
s5 : 0000000000000008 s6 : ff60000093a6a680 s7 : ff60000093a6a6f0
s8 : ff60000093a6a6ac s9 : ff60000093140000 s10: 0000000000000000
s11: ff2000000eecb9d0 t3 : 0000000000000000 t4 : 0000000000ff0000
t5 : 0000000000000000 t6 : ff60000093a6a8b6
status: 0000000200000120 badaddr: ffffffffa38dbf58 cause: 000000000000000d
[] __qdisc_run+0x82/0x6f0
[] __dev_queue_xmit+0x4c0/0x1128
[] neigh_resolve_output+0xd0/0x170
[] ip6_finish_output2+0x226/0x6c8
[] ip6_finish_output+0x10c/0x2a0
[] ip6_output+0x5e/0x178
[] ip6_xmit+0x29a/0x608
[] inet6_csk_xmit+0xe6/0x140
[] __tcp_transmit_skb+0x45c/0xaa8
[] tcp_connect+0x9ce/0xd10
[] tcp_v6_connect+0x4ac/0x5e8
[] __inet_stream_connect+0xd8/0x318
[] inet_stream_connect+0x3e/0x68
[] __sys_connect_file+0x50/0x88
[] __sys_connect+0x96/0xc8
[] __riscv_sys_connect+0x20/0x30
[] do_trap_ecall_u+0x256/0x378
[] handle_exception+0x14a/0x156
Code: 892a 0363 1205 489c 8bc1 c7e5 2d03 084a 2703 080a (2783) 0709
---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]---
The bpf_fifo_dequeue prog returns a skb which is a pointer. The pointer
is treated as a 32bit value and sign extend to 64bit in epilogue. This
behavior is right for most bpf prog types but wrong for struct ops which
requires RISC-V ABI.
So let's sign extend struct ops return values according to the function
model and RISC-V ABI([0]).
[0]: https://riscv.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/riscv-calling.pdf
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 2026-11-03). 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