In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
tracing/user_events: Fix use-after-free in user_event_mm_dup()
user_event_mm_dup() walks the parent mm's enabler list locklessly under
rcu_read_lock() during fork() (from copy_process()); it does not take
event_mutex:
rcu_read_lock();
list_for_each_entry_rcu(enabler, &old_mm->enablers, mm_enablers_link)
enabler->event = user_event_get(orig->event);
user_event_enabler_destroy() removes an enabler from that list with
list_del_rcu() and then, without waiting for a grace period, drops the
enabler's user_event reference with user_event_put() and frees the enabler
with kfree(). A reader that loaded the enabler before the list_del_rcu()
can still be walking it, which leads to two use-after-frees:
- kfree(enabler) frees the enabler while that reader dereferences
enabler->event.
- user_event_put() may drop the last reference to the user_event, which
is then freed (via delayed_destroy_user_event() on a work queue), while
the same reader does user_event_get(orig->event) on it.
Both are reachable by an unprivileged task that can open user_events_data:
one multithreaded process that registers an enabler and then concurrently
unregisters it and calls fork() triggers the race. KASAN reports a
slab-use-after-free in user_event_mm_dup() during clone(), with a
"refcount_t: addition on 0" warning when the user_event is freed.
The enabler use-after-free was found first; the user_event one was reported
by XIAO WU, and the earlier enabler-only fix did not address it.
Defer both the user_event_put() and the kfree(enabler) to a work item
queued with queue_rcu_work(), so they run only after an RCU grace period,
once all readers walking the enabler list have finished. The put must run
in process context because user_event_put() takes event_mutex on the last
reference, so a work queue is used rather than call_rcu(). The now-unlocked
put lets the locked argument of user_event_enabler_destroy() be removed;
all callers are updated.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.8 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 (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-17). 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