In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
x86/ftrace: Relocate %rip-relative percpu refs in dynamic trampolines
With CONFIG_CALL_DEPTH_TRACKING enabled on an x86 retbleed-affected platform
(eg: Skylake), with retbleed=stuff, registering a dynamic ftrace trampoline
crashes on the first call into the traced function:
BUG: unable to handle page fault for address: ffff88817ae18880
#PF: supervisor write access in kernel mode
#PF: error_code(0x0002) - not-present page
PGD 4b53067 P4D 4b53067 PUD 0
Oops: Oops: 0002 [#1] SMP PTI
CPU: 3 UID: 0 PID: 187 Comm: usleep Not tainted 7.0.10 #243 PREEMPT(full)
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS Arch Linux 1.17.0-2-2 04/01/2014
Code: 24 78 00 00 00 00 48 89 ea 48 89 54 24 20 48 8b b4 24 b8 00 00 00 48 8b bc 24 b0 00 00 00 48 89 bc 24 80 00 00 00 48 83 ef 05 <65> 48 c1 3d 1f a8 b6 02 05 48 8b 15 f6 00 00 00 4c 89 3c 24 4c 89
Call Trace:
? find_held_lock
? exc_page_fault
? lock_release
? __x64_sys_clock_nanosleep
? lockdep_hardirqs_on_prepare
? trace_hardirqs_on
__x64_sys_clock_nanosleep
do_syscall_64
? exc_page_fault
? call_depth_return_thunk
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe
...
Kernel panic - not syncing: Fatal exception
This small reproducer allows to easily trigger the crash:
# echo 'p __x64_sys_clock_nanosleep' > /sys/kernel/tracing/kprobe_events
# echo 1 > /sys/kernel/tracing/events/kprobes/p___x64_sys_clock_nanosleep_0/enable
# usleep 1
Monitoring the crash under GDB points to the exact instruction in charge of
incrementing the call depth:
sarq $5, %gs:__x86_call_depth(%rip)
This instruction matches the one inserted by the ftrace_regs_caller from
ftrace_64.S. This emitted code was likely working fine until the introduction
of
59bec00ace28 ("x86/percpu: Introduce %rip-relative addressing to PER_CPU_VAR()"):
it has made the call depth accounting addressing relative to $rip, instead of
being based on an absolute address.
As this code exact location depends on where the trampoline lives in memory,
the corresponding displacement needs to be adjusted at runtime to actually
correctly find the per-cpu __x86_call_depth value, otherwise the targeted
address is wrong, leading to the page fault seen above.
Fix the %rip-relative displacement of the copied CALL_DEPTH_ACCOUNT
instruction (from ftrace_regs_caller) by calling text_poke_apply_relocation(),
as it is done for example by the x86 BPF JIT compiler through
x86_call_depth_emit_accounting(). This corrects both CALL_DEPTH_ACCOUNT slots,
in ftrace_caller and ftrace_regs_caller.
[ bp: Massage. ]
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (8.1): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 8.1 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 8.1 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.3% 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: 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.
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