In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
bpf: Reject sleepable BPF_LSM_CGROUP programs at load time
The cgroup shim runs under rcu_read_lock_dont_migrate(), so we should
not attach any sleepable BPF programs there. Add support to the verifier
to explicitly reject attempts to load sleepable BPF programs destined
for LSM cgroup attachment.
Without this, we get the following splat from a BPF_LSM_CGROUP
program marked BPF_F_SLEEPABLE attached to file_open when it calls
bpf_get_dentry_xattr():
BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/locking/rwsem.c:1567
in_atomic(): 0, irqs_disabled(): 0, non_block: 0, pid: 34317, name: load
preempt_count: 0, expected: 0
RCU nest depth: 2, expected: 0
Call Trace:
down_read+0x76/0x480
ext4_xattr_get+0x11f/0x700
__vfs_getxattr+0xf0/0x150
bpf_get_dentry_xattr+0xbb/0xf0
bpf_prog_e76a298dac9218c6_test_open+0x6a/0x85
__cgroup_bpf_run_lsm_current+0x326/0x840
bpf_trampoline_6442534646+0x62/0x14d
security_file_open+0x34/0x60
do_dentry_open+0x340/0x1260
vfs_open+0x7a/0x440
path_openat+0x1bac/0x30a0
libbpf provides a .s named section variant for every sleepable
program type except lsm_cgroup, reflecting that per-cgroup LSM programs
are intended to only run in a non-sleepable context.
The above splat was obtained by bypassing libbpf by using bpf(2)
directly.
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 (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