In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
rust: arm64: set uwtable llvm module flag for CONFIG_UNWIND_TABLES
Due to a rustc bug [1] the -Cforce-unwind-tables=y flag only emits the
uwtable annotation for functions, but not for the module. This means
that compiler-generated functions such as 'asan.module_ctor' do not
receive the uwtable annotation.
When CONFIG_UNWIND_PATCH_PAC_INTO_SCS is enabled, this leads to boot
failures because the dwarf information emitted for the kasan
constructors is wrong, which causes the SCS boot patching code to
patch the constructor in an illegal manner. Specifically, the paciasp
instruction is patched, but the autiasp instruction is not. This
mismatch leads to a crash when the constructor is called during boot.
==================================================================
BUG: KASAN: global-out-of-bounds in do_basic_setup+0x4c/0x90
Read of size 8 at addr ffffffe3cc7eb488 by task swapper/0/1
Specifically the faulting instruction is the (*fn)() to invoke the
constructor in do_ctors() of the init/main.c file.
Once the fix lands in rustc, this flag can be made conditional on the
rustc version. Note that passing the flag on a rustc with the fix
present has no effect.
[ The fix [1] has landed for Rust 1.98.0 (expected release on
2026-08-20).
Thus add a version check as discussed.
[ Adjusted link and comment. - Miguel ]
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.1): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.1 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.1 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. 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 (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.
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