In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
iommufd: Fix wrong hwpt passed to iommufd_auto_response_faults on replace
iommufd_hwpt_replace_device() calls:
iommufd_auto_response_faults(hwpt, old_handle);
passing the *new* hwpt together with the handle of
the device's *old* domain. This should be a parameter mismatch:
- Semantically, iommufd_auto_response_faults(x, handle) scans
x->fault's deliver list and response xarray for groups matching
"handle". A group is queued under the hwpt that was attached at
fault-delivery time. old_handle is fetched *before* the domain switch,
so its group lives on old->fault, not on the new hwpt->fault.
- Historically, the first argument was "old". The routine was
introduced by commit b7d8833677ba ("iommufd: Fault-capable hwpt
attach/detach/replace") as __fault_domain_replace_dev() in
fault.c, correctly calling iommufd_auto_response_faults(old, curr).
Commit fb21b1568ada ("iommufd: Make attach_handle generic than
fault specific") moved this into iommufd_hwpt_replace_device() in
device.c and swapped it to "hwpt". This should be a refactor regression,
not an intentional change.
Fix this by passing "old" instead.
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