In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
KVM: x86: Use active memslots for the per-vCPU MMIO cache
KVM tags the per-vCPU MMIO cache with a memslot generation so that a
memslot update invalidates cached MMIO information. Both the fill and
validation paths use kvm_memslots(), which unconditionally selects address
space 0, even when the vCPU is running in SMM and using address space 1.
Commit 56f17dd3fbc4 ("kvm: x86: fix stale mmio cache bug") added the
memslot generation to the cache key so that a memslot update could not
leave a stale entry valid. When commit 699023e23965 ("KVM: x86: add SMM
to the MMU role, support SMRAM address space") added the SMM address space,
these helpers were not converted to use the active memslots.
Consequently, an update to the SMM memslots can leave an entry from the old
SMM address space apparently valid after the vCPU returns to the normal
address space. A guest can then cause an access to valid RAM at the same
GFN to be returned to userspace as KVM_EXIT_MMIO.
Completing that exit through the VMM's RAM address space writes the backing
page without going through KVM's write-tracking path. If the page backs a
nested EPT table, KVM can continue using shadow translations derived from
the old contents. The WARN_ON_ONCE() in kvm_mmu_write_protect_fault()
catches this invalid cache and memslot combination.
Use the vCPU's active memslots when caching and validating the entry.
Memslot generations are unique across address spaces, so the generation
also distinguishes the normal and SMM views. This matches the MMIO SPTE
cache, which already uses kvm_vcpu_memslots().
On an unpatched current-mainline kernel, a regression test that fills the
cache in SMM and updates only the SMM memslots fails the intended RAM write
and triggers the kvm_mmu_write_protect_fault() warning. With this change,
the same test completes the RAM write without a warning. The x86/smm_test,
set_memory_region_test, and memslot_modification_stress_test selftests also
pass.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (8.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 8.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 8.8 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. 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, 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).
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.
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