In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
cxl: Fix CXL_HEADERLOG_SIZE to match RAS Capability size
The CXL r4.0 8.2.4.17.7 RAS Capability Structure has total length 0x58
bytes (CXL_RAS_CAPABILITY_LENGTH); the Header Log occupies the trailing
64 bytes at offset 0x18. CXL_HEADERLOG_SIZE was defined as SZ_512,
eight times the actual on-device size.
header_log_copy() reads CXL_HEADERLOG_SIZE_U32 (128) dwords from the
RAS capability iomap, overrunning the 88-byte mapping by 448 bytes.
The cxl_aer_uncorrectable_error trace event memcpy()s CXL_HEADERLOG_SIZE
(512) bytes from its source. For the CPER caller the source is
struct cxl_ras_capability_regs::header_log[16] (64 bytes) embedded in a
stack-local cxl_cper_prot_err_work_data, so the memcpy reads 448 bytes
of kernel stack into the trace event ring buffer where userspace can
read it via tracefs.
Set CXL_HEADERLOG_SIZE to 64 and derive CXL_HEADERLOG_SIZE_U32 from it,
bringing all iomap readers into agreement on 16 dwords. Userspace tools
such as rasdaemon have grown a dependency on the buggy 512-byte (128 u32)
header_log layout in the cxl_aer_uncorrectable_error trace event. Add
CXL_HEADERLOG_TRACE_SIZE_U32 = 128 and use it for the trace event
__array and its memcpy to preserve that ABI. Both callers now pass a
zero-filled u32[CXL_HEADERLOG_TRACE_SIZE_U32] staging buffer with only
the first CXL_HEADERLOG_SIZE_U32 (16) entries populated from hardware;
the remaining 112 u32s are zero-padded, keeping the 512-byte trace ring
buffer layout intact.
[ dj: Replaced 64 with SZ_64 per RichardC ]
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.1): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.1 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.1 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 2026-10-28). 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