In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
bpf: dont report verifier bug for missing bpf_scc_visit on speculative path
Syzbot generated a program that triggers a verifier_bug() call in
maybe_exit_scc(). maybe_exit_scc() assumes that, when called for a
state with insn_idx in some SCC, there should be an instance of struct
bpf_scc_visit allocated for that SCC. Turns out the assumption does
not hold for speculative execution paths. See example in the next
patch.
maybe_scc_exit() is called from update_branch_counts() for states that
reach branch count of zero, meaning that path exploration for a
particular path is finished. Path exploration can finish in one of
three ways:
a. Verification error is found. In this case, update_branch_counts()
is called only for non-speculative paths.
b. Top level BPF_EXIT is reached. Such instructions are never a part of
an SCC, so compute_scc_callchain() in maybe_scc_exit() will return
false, and maybe_scc_exit() will return early.
c. A checkpoint is reached and matched. Checkpoints are created by
is_state_visited(), which calls maybe_enter_scc(), which allocates
bpf_scc_visit instances for checkpoints within SCCs.
Hence, for non-speculative symbolic execution paths, the assumption
still holds: if maybe_scc_exit() is called for a state within an SCC,
bpf_scc_visit instance must exist.
This patch removes the verifier_bug() call for speculative paths.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
- EG Severity
- Not assessed: no CVSS publishedA missing CVSS is not a severity of zero.
- EG Likelihood
- 0.3% 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
- No SSVC decision: EchelonGraph has not assessed this CVECISA 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 BOD 26-04 block below.
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