In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
mm: fix incorrect flush address in direct page table reclaim
When zap_pte_range reclaims a page table, it does:
pte_free_tlb(tlb, pmd_pgtable(pmdval), addr);
and this is unconditionally wrong: if this code executes, addr *always*
points one past the end of the range covered by the table. The addr
parameter is used to flush the TLB (really the paging-structure-cache)
to drop references to the to-be-freed table, and any architecture that
cares about the parameter will flush the wrong address. (But they'll
still free the correct page).
I think it's worth contemplating why the kernel works at all.
If we hit the offending line of code, we will first clear the PMD entry
(line 1954, zap_empty_pte_table), then we will issue pending flushes if
force_flush is set (tlb_flush_mmu_tlbonly(tlb)), then we will skip the
retry on line 1979 (phew!), and then we will do the offending
pte_free_tlb call. *Or* we will clear the PMD entry immediately before
pte_free_tlb (line 1983, zap_pte_table_if_empty).
If we have any pending flushes (i.e. we actually zapped any last-level
entries) at the time we clear the PMD entry, then the flush really ought
to flush all references to the table (Linus certainly seems to think it
will on all architectures [0]).
The condition under which we have no accumulated flushes at the time of
the clear is very complex (the whole zap_pte_range function has absurdly
complex control flow). If we do hit the bad case, then we will end up
clearing the PMD entry after the last time the range is flushed, and any
CPU is free to cache a reference to the (empty) page table. If this
happens due to an ordinary read or write, it would segfault, so it would
be rare. But the cache could be speculatively filled as well. Then
we'll flush the wrong address and then free and possibly reuse the
table.
On x86, even flushing the wrong address works on non-KPTI Intel systems
because INVLPG flushes *all* paging-structure-caches, not just the ones
for the target address. But INVPCID does not, and flush_tlb_one_user
will use INVPCID if it's available. And then we're toast. AMD systems
are more susceptible: we set the EFER.TCE bit, which makes even INVLPG
only flush the target address.
I think this might fix an issue in ripgrep reported here:
https://github.com/BurntSushi/ripgrep/issues/3494
[0] https://lore.kernel.org/all/CA+55aFzBggoXtNXQeng5d_mRoDnaMBE5Y+URs+PHR67nUpMtaw@mail.gmail.com/T/#u
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 2026-10-29). 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