In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
bpf: Preserve id of register in sync_linked_regs()
sync_linked_regs() copies the id of known_reg to reg when propagating
bounds of known_reg to reg using the off of known_reg, but when
known_reg was linked to reg like:
known_reg = reg ; both known_reg and reg get same id
known_reg += 4 ; known_reg gets off = 4, and its id gets BPF_ADD_CONST
now when a call to sync_linked_regs() happens, let's say with the following:
if known_reg >= 10 goto pc+2
known_reg's new bounds are propagated to reg but now reg gets
BPF_ADD_CONST from the copy.
This means if another link to reg is created like:
another_reg = reg ; another_reg should get the id of reg but
assign_scalar_id_before_mov() sees
BPF_ADD_CONST on reg and assigns a new id to it.
As reg has a new id now, known_reg's link to reg is broken. If we find
new bounds for known_reg, they will not be propagated to reg.
This can be seen in the selftest added in the next commit:
0: (85) call bpf_get_prandom_u32#7 ; R0=scalar()
1: (57) r0 &= 255 ; R0=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=255,var_off=(0x0; 0xff))
2: (bf) r1 = r0 ; R0=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=255,var_off=(0x0; 0xff)) R1=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=255,var_off=(0x0; 0xff))
3: (07) r1 += 4 ; R1=scalar(id=1+4,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=4,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=259,var_off=(0x0; 0x1ff))
4: (a5) if r1 < 0xa goto pc+4 ; R1=scalar(id=1+4,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=10,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=259,var_off=(0x0; 0x1ff))
5: (bf) r2 = r0 ; R0=scalar(id=2,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=6,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=255) R2=scalar(id=2,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=6,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=255)
6: (a5) if r1 < 0xe goto pc+2 ; R1=scalar(id=1+4,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=14,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=259,var_off=(0x0; 0x1ff))
7: (35) if r0 >= 0xa goto pc+1 ; R0=scalar(id=2,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=6,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=9,var_off=(0x0; 0xf))
8: (37) r0 /= 0
div by zero
When 4 is verified, r1's bounds are propagated to r0 but r0 also gets
BPF_ADD_CONST (bug).
When 5 is verified, r0 gets a new id (2) and its link with r1 is broken.
After 6 we know r1 has bounds [14, 259] and therefore r0 should have
bounds [10, 255], therefore the branch at 7 is always taken. But because
r0's id was changed to 2, r1's new bounds are not propagated to r0.
The verifier still thinks r0 has bounds [6, 255] before 7 and execution
can reach div by zero.
Fix this by preserving id in sync_linked_regs() like off and subreg_def.
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 2026-10-27). 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 (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.
The score's inputs: 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