In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
bpf: Infer zext_dst based on static register liveness analysis
As reported in the thread [1], the verifier's 32-bit operations zero
extension logic is broken. This logic is responsible for correct
semantics of 32-bit operations on s390 architecture.
According to BPF semantics, operation w1 += 1 is supposed to zero
extend the upper half of the register r1. On s390 the JIT relies on
the verifier emitting explicit zero extension before such operations.
The verifier attempts to minimize the amount of zero extensions
inserted by tracking whether upper halves of the 64-bit registers are
ever used. Previously such tracking worked as follows:
- bpf_reg_state->subreg_def field was set by do_check_insn()
for each operation defining lower but not the upper halves
of the register.
- Whenever an operation reading the whole register was verified,
the verifier checked register's subreg_def and set
bpf_insn_aux_data->zext_dst flag as true via a call to
mark_insn_zext() function.
- After the verification was complete, a special pass
bpf_opt_subreg_zext_lo32_rnd_hi32() extended 32-bit operations
with bpf_insn_aux_data->zext_dst set as true by adding
explicit zero extension.
Note that the logic above relies on bpf_reg_state->subreg_def,
which is a property of a current verifier state.
Before the commit [2] two additional steps happened:
- The verifier tracked upper and lower register halves' liveness as
flags REG_LIVE_READ{32,64} in bpf_reg_state->live.
- The function propagate_liveness() called mark_insn_zext()
in order to transfer the knowledge about which registers have
their upper halves alive (and thus might require zero extension).
The commit [2] removed the two steps described above,
hence making possible a situation like below:
- The register's upper half is set and is used on some verification
path P1 and the register happens not to be marked as precise.
- The checkpoint C is created while processing some instruction
between register initialization and usage.
- On some other verification path P2 the register's upper half is not
initialized and that path ends hitting the checkpoint C.
- In such a case the register's initialization on path P2 would lack
zext_dst mark, making it possible for the program to inject
an arbitrary value in the register's upper half.
This commit replaces subreg_def based logic with computing zext_dst
statically, as a part of the bpf_compute_live_registers() analysis:
- The analysis now tracks usage of upper and lower halves of the
registers separately.
- If some instruction defines a 32-bit subregister, but not the whole
register, *and* the upper half of the register is alive after that
instruction, the instruction is marked as zext_dst.
There is one notable drop in precision: whenever a BPF subprogram is
called, all 64 bits of parameter registers are presumed to be used.
The assumption is that such a drop in precision would not inflict
a noticeable performance penalty.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CAGKGUv=sOuqQtA1Ub-5JXfA4FPosJFYKAQE4B79cK+P1erxqtg@mail.gmail.com/
[2] commit 107e16979905 ("bpf: disable and remove registers chain based liveness")
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 2026-10-31). 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.No released fix is confirmed on this page, but CISA's timeline does not wait for a fix's release: it starts when an agency identifies the flaw on an asset and updates the CDM Agency and Federal Dashboard, and the directive counts patching, decommissioning the system or another action as remediation. Until a fixed release is applied, mitigate as this page's verdict says. In the directive's words, “Fix on system upgrade” means that, “unless conditions change”, the vulnerability “should be remediated the next time the vulnerable asset receives a scheduled major upgrade or rebuild”: its timelines are “dynamic as facts change”, and a KEV listing shortens them.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: 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).
No fix is confirmed yet. Check the vendor's advisory for a fixed release; until one is applied, restrict network exposure of the affected system or apply the vendor's mitigation on your normal schedule.
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.
No released fix is confirmed on this page, but CISA's timeline does not wait for a fix's release: it starts when an agency identifies the flaw on an asset and updates the CDM Agency and Federal Dashboard, and the directive counts patching, decommissioning the system or another action as remediation. Until a fixed release is applied, mitigate as this page's verdict says. In the directive's words, “Fix on system upgrade” means that, “unless conditions change”, the vulnerability “should be remediated the next time the vulnerable asset receives a scheduled major upgrade or rebuild”: its timelines are “dynamic as facts change”, and a KEV listing shortens them.
The score's inputs: 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