In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
arm64: contpte: fix set_access_flags() no-op check for SMMU/ATS faults
contpte_ptep_set_access_flags() compared the gathered ptep_get() value
against the requested entry to detect no-ops. ptep_get() ORs AF/dirty
from all sub-PTEs in the CONT block, so a dirty sibling can make the
target appear already-dirty. When the gathered value matches entry, the
function returns 0 even though the target sub-PTE still has PTE_RDONLY
set in hardware.
For a CPU with FEAT_HAFDBS this gathered view is fine, since hardware may
set AF/dirty on any sub-PTE and CPU TLB behavior is effectively gathered
across the CONT range. But page-table walkers that evaluate each
descriptor individually (e.g. a CPU without DBM support, or an SMMU
without HTTU, or with HA/HD disabled in CD.TCR) can keep faulting on the
unchanged target sub-PTE, causing an infinite fault loop.
Gathering can therefore cause false no-ops when only a sibling has been
updated:
- write faults: target still has PTE_RDONLY (needs PTE_RDONLY cleared)
- read faults: target still lacks PTE_AF
Fix by checking each sub-PTE against the requested AF/dirty/write state
(the same bits consumed by __ptep_set_access_flags()), using raw
per-PTE values rather than the gathered ptep_get() view, before
returning no-op. Keep using the raw target PTE for the write-bit unfold
decision.
Per Arm ARM (DDI 0487) D8.7.1 ("The Contiguous bit"), any sub-PTE in a CONT
range may become the effective cached translation and software must
maintain consistent attributes across the range.
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. 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