In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
dma-mapping: move dma_map_resource() sanity check into debug code
dma_map_resource() uses pfn_valid() to ensure the range is not RAM.
However, pfn_valid() only checks for availability of the memory map for
a PFN but it does not ensure that the PFN is actually backed by RAM. On
ARM64 with SPARSEMEM (128MB section granularity), MMIO addresses that
share a section with RAM will falsely trigger the WARN_ON_ONCE and cause
dma_map_resource() to return DMA_MAPPING_ERROR.
This causes a WARNING on Raspberry Pi 4 during spi_bcm2835 probe because
the SPI FIFO register (0xfe204004) falls in the same sparsemem section
as the end of RAM (0xf8000000-0xfbffffff), both in section 31
(0xf8000000-0xffffffff).
Move the sanity check from dma_map_resource() into debug_dma_map_phys()
and replace the unreliable pfn_valid() with pfn_valid() &&
!PageReserved(), which correctly identifies actual usable RAM without
false positives for MMIO regions that happen to have struct pages.
Since dma_map_resource() is dma_map_phys(DMA_ATTR_MMIO), the check
applies equally to both APIs. Any non-reserved page represents kernel
memory to a sufficient degree that using DMA_ATTR_MMIO on it is almost
certainly wrong and risks breaking coherency on non-coherent platforms.
ZONE_DEVICE pages used for PCI P2P DMA (MEMORY_DEVICE_PCI_P2PDMA) have
PageReserved set, so they will not trigger a false positive.
The check no longer blocks the mapping and uses err_printk() to
integrate with dma-debug filtering.
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
- 0.2% 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