In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
bpf: Fix incorrect pruning due to atomic fetch precision tracking
When backtrack_insn encounters a BPF_STX instruction with BPF_ATOMIC
and BPF_FETCH, the src register (or r0 for BPF_CMPXCHG) also acts as
a destination, thus receiving the old value from the memory location.
The current backtracking logic does not account for this. It treats
atomic fetch operations the same as regular stores where the src
register is only an input. This leads the backtrack_insn to fail to
propagate precision to the stack location, which is then not marked
as precise!
Later, the verifier's path pruning can incorrectly consider two states
equivalent when they differ in terms of stack state. Meaning, two
branches can be treated as equivalent and thus get pruned when they
should not be seen as such.
Fix it as follows: Extend the BPF_LDX handling in backtrack_insn to
also cover atomic fetch operations via is_atomic_fetch_insn() helper.
When the fetch dst register is being tracked for precision, clear it,
and propagate precision over to the stack slot. For non-stack memory,
the precision walk stops at the atomic instruction, same as regular
BPF_LDX. This covers all fetch variants.
Before:
0: (b7) r1 = 8 ; R1=8
1: (7b) *(u64 *)(r10 -8) = r1 ; R1=8 R10=fp0 fp-8=8
2: (b7) r2 = 0 ; R2=0
3: (db) r2 = atomic64_fetch_add((u64 *)(r10 -8), r2) ; R2=8 R10=fp0 fp-8=mmmmmmmm
4: (bf) r3 = r10 ; R3=fp0 R10=fp0
5: (0f) r3 += r2
mark_precise: frame0: last_idx 5 first_idx 0 subseq_idx -1
mark_precise: frame0: regs=r2 stack= before 4: (bf) r3 = r10
mark_precise: frame0: regs=r2 stack= before 3: (db) r2 = atomic64_fetch_add((u64 *)(r10 -8), r2)
mark_precise: frame0: regs=r2 stack= before 2: (b7) r2 = 0
6: R2=8 R3=fp8
6: (b7) r0 = 0 ; R0=0
7: (95) exit
After:
0: (b7) r1 = 8 ; R1=8
1: (7b) *(u64 *)(r10 -8) = r1 ; R1=8 R10=fp0 fp-8=8
2: (b7) r2 = 0 ; R2=0
3: (db) r2 = atomic64_fetch_add((u64 *)(r10 -8), r2) ; R2=8 R10=fp0 fp-8=mmmmmmmm
4: (bf) r3 = r10 ; R3=fp0 R10=fp0
5: (0f) r3 += r2
mark_precise: frame0: last_idx 5 first_idx 0 subseq_idx -1
mark_precise: frame0: regs=r2 stack= before 4: (bf) r3 = r10
mark_precise: frame0: regs=r2 stack= before 3: (db) r2 = atomic64_fetch_add((u64 *)(r10 -8), r2)
mark_precise: frame0: regs= stack=-8 before 2: (b7) r2 = 0
mark_precise: frame0: regs= stack=-8 before 1: (7b) *(u64 *)(r10 -8) = r1
mark_precise: frame0: regs=r1 stack= before 0: (b7) r1 = 8
6: R2=8 R3=fp8
6: (b7) r0 = 0 ; R0=0
7: (95) exit
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 2026-10-19). 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