In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
mm/damon/core: error damos_commit_quota_goal() for zero target_value
Patch series "mm/damon: move zero damos quota target_value handling to the
core layer".
Having zero DAMOS quota target value can cause division by zero. DAMON
API callers are checking the target value parameters to avoid that. It is
easy to make mistakes in some of the multiple API callers. Move that to
the core layer.
Patch 1 adds the corner case handling into the core layer DAMON parameters
validation logic. Patches 2 and 3 remove no more needed DAMON API callers
side handling of the corner case in DAMON_LRU_SORT and DMON_SAMPLIE_MTIER,
respectively.
This patch (of 3):
If a DAMOS scheme has a damos_quota_goal of zero target_value,
damos_quota_goal() could trigger division-by-zero error. Hence each DAMON
API callers should do the zero target_value validation. It is easy to
make mistakes. Actually such bugs in DAMON_LRU_SORT and
DAMON_SAMPLE_MTIER were found and fixed [1].
It is better to handle the corner case only once in the core layer,
instead of multiple places in all DAMON API callers. One straightforward
option is using an alternative denominator for the corner case in the
damos_quota_goal(). However, the zero target_value is meaningless. In
this case, the quota goal is always evaluated as achieved or
over-achieved. The quota will only keep being reduced.
Simply avoid using zero target_value by adding a check in the core layer
DAMOS quota goal parameters validation/commit path,
damos_commit_quota_goal(). Update it to return an error in the case.
Also update its caller to propagate the error.
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 2026-11-03). 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.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 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.
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