In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
powerpc/hv-gpci: fix preempt count leak in sysfs show paths
Four sysfs show() callbacks in hv-gpci take get_cpu_var(hv_gpci_reqb)
(which calls preempt_disable()) but only call the matching put_cpu_var()
on the error path under the 'out:' label. Every successful read leaks
one preempt_disable():
processor_bus_topology_show()
processor_config_show()
affinity_domain_via_virtual_processor_show()
affinity_domain_via_domain_show()
(affinity_domain_via_partition_show() was already correct.)
On a CONFIG_PREEMPT=y kernel, repeated reads raise preempt_count and
eventually return to userspace with preemption still disabled. The
next user-mode page fault then hits faulthandler_disabled() == 1,
gets forced to SIGSEGV, and the resulting coredump trips
'BUG: scheduling while atomic' in call_usermodehelper_exec ->
wait_for_completion_state -> schedule:
BUG: scheduling while atomic: //0x00000004
...
__schedule_bug+0x6c/0x90
__schedule+0x58c/0x13a0
schedule+0x48/0x1a0
schedule_timeout+0x104/0x170
wait_for_completion_state+0x16c/0x330
call_usermodehelper_exec+0x254/0x2d0
vfs_coredump+0x1050/0x2590
get_signal+0xb9c/0xc80
do_notify_resume+0xf8/0x470
Add an out_success label that calls put_cpu_var() before returning
the byte count, mirroring affinity_domain_via_partition_show().
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 (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-24). 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