In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
gcov: use atomic counter updates to fix concurrent access crashes
GCC's GCOV instrumentation can merge global branch counters with loop
induction variables as an optimization. In inflate_fast(), the inner copy
loops get transformed so that the GCOV counter value is loaded multiple
times to compute the loop base address, start index, and end bound. Since
GCOV counters are global (not per-CPU), concurrent execution on different
CPUs causes the counter to change between loads, producing inconsistent
values and out-of-bounds memory writes.
The crash manifests during IPComp (IP Payload Compression) processing when
inflate_fast() runs concurrently on multiple CPUs:
BUG: unable to handle page fault for address: ffffd0a3c0902ffa
RIP: inflate_fast+1431
Call Trace:
zlib_inflate
__deflate_decompress
crypto_comp_decompress
ipcomp_decompress [xfrm_ipcomp]
ipcomp_input [xfrm_ipcomp]
xfrm_input
At the crash point, the compiler generated three loads from the same
global GCOV counter (__gcov0.inflate_fast+216) to compute base, start, and
end for an indexed loop. Another CPU modified the counter between loads,
making the values inconsistent - the write went 3.4 MB past a 65 KB
buffer.
Add -fprofile-update=prefer-atomic to CFLAGS_GCOV at the global level in
the top-level Makefile, guarded by a try-run compile test. The test
compiles a minimal program with and without -fprofile-update=prefer-atomic
using the full KBUILD_CFLAGS, then compares undefined symbols in the
resulting object files. If prefer-atomic introduces new undefined
references (such as __atomic_fetch_add_8 on i386 or __aarch64_ldadd8_relax
on arm64 with outline-atomics), the flag is not added -- the kernel does
not link against libatomic.
On architectures where GCC inlines 64-bit atomic counter updates (x86_64,
s390, ...) the test passes and the flag is enabled, preventing the
compiler from merging counters with loop induction variables and fixing
the observed concurrent-access crash.
On architectures where the flag would introduce libatomic dependencies, it
is silently omitted and behaviour is no worse than before this patch.
Move the CFLAGS_GCOV block from its original position (before the arch
Makefile include) to after the core KBUILD_CFLAGS assignments but before
the scripts/Makefile.gcc-plugins include. This placement ensures the
try-run test sees arch-specific flags (-m32, -march=,
-mno-outline-atomics) while avoiding GCC plugin flags (-fplugin=) that
would break the test on clean builds when plugin shared objects do not yet
exist.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (9.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 9.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 9.8 CRITICALCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.8% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-29). 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