In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
io_uring/rsrc: fix folio size overflow in io_vec_fill_bvec()
io_vec_fill_bvec() computes the folio size with a plain int 1:
unsigned long folio_size = 1 << imu->folio_shift;
imu->folio_shift is unsigned int and comes from folio_shift() of the
folio backing the registered buffer, so it can be 32 or more on a 64 bit
kernel. Shifting int 1 that far is undefined, and on x86 and arm64 the
count is taken modulo 32, so a shift of 34 yields 4 rather than 16G.
Every other folio_shift shift in this file already uses 1UL.
The result is that the segment estimate and the fill loop disagree.
io_estimate_bvec_size() sizes the bvec array with the real shift:
max_segs += (iov[i].iov_len >> shift) + 2;
so a 1M iovec on a 16G folio is charged 2 segments, while
io_vec_fill_bvec() then walks the same iovec in folio_size chunks of 4
bytes and writes res_bvec[bvec_idx] a quarter of a million times, past
the end of the array it was given. src_bvec is advanced once per
iteration as well, so imu->bvec is read past its end at the same time.
validate_fixed_range() only checks that the range is inside the
registered buffer and does not bound the segment count.
Reaching it needs a folio with a shift of at least 32, which means a
gigantic hugetlb page: 16G on arm64 with 64K pages, where
CONT_PMD_SHIFT is 34 and hugetlb_add_hstate(CONT_PMD_SHIFT - PAGE_SHIFT)
registers that size, and likewise on powerpc. x86_64 tops out at 1G, so
a shift of 30, which still fits in int and is unaffected.
Use 1UL, as the rest of the file does.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
- EG Severity
- Not assessed: no CVSS publishedA missing CVSS is not a severity of zero.
- EG Likelihood
- 0.2% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-24). 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
- No SSVC decision: EchelonGraph has not assessed this CVECISA 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 BOD 26-04 block below.
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