In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
KVM: x86: Fix stack-out-of-bounds memory access from ioapic_write_indirect()
KASAN reports the following issue:
BUG: KASAN: stack-out-of-bounds in kvm_make_vcpus_request_mask+0x174/0x440 [kvm]
Read of size 8 at addr ffffc9001364f638 by task qemu-kvm/4798
CPU: 0 PID: 4798 Comm: qemu-kvm Tainted: G X --------- ---
Hardware name: AMD Corporation DAYTONA_X/DAYTONA_X, BIOS RYM0081C 07/13/2020
Call Trace:
dump_stack+0xa5/0xe6
print_address_description.constprop.0+0x18/0x130
? kvm_make_vcpus_request_mask+0x174/0x440 [kvm]
__kasan_report.cold+0x7f/0x114
? kvm_make_vcpus_request_mask+0x174/0x440 [kvm]
kasan_report+0x38/0x50
kasan_check_range+0xf5/0x1d0
kvm_make_vcpus_request_mask+0x174/0x440 [kvm]
kvm_make_scan_ioapic_request_mask+0x84/0xc0 [kvm]
? kvm_arch_exit+0x110/0x110 [kvm]
? sched_clock+0x5/0x10
ioapic_write_indirect+0x59f/0x9e0 [kvm]
? static_obj+0xc0/0xc0
? __lock_acquired+0x1d2/0x8c0
? kvm_ioapic_eoi_inject_work+0x120/0x120 [kvm]
The problem appears to be that 'vcpu_bitmap' is allocated as a single long
on stack and it should really be KVM_MAX_VCPUS long. We also seem to clear
the lower 16 bits of it with bitmap_zero() for no particular reason (my
guess would be that 'bitmap' and 'vcpu_bitmap' variables in
kvm_bitmap_or_dest_vcpus() caused the confusion: while the later is indeed
16-bit long, the later should accommodate all possible vCPUs).
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.1): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.1 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.1 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.3% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-27). 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 every mission impact level.CISA BOD 26-04: 60 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 every mission impact level.
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (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)60 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 Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). 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