In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
arm64: compat: Do not treat syscall number as ESR_ELx for a bad syscall
If a compat process tries to execute an unknown system call above the
__ARM_NR_COMPAT_END number, the kernel sends a SIGILL signal to the
offending process. Information about the error is printed to dmesg in
compat_arm_syscall() -> arm64_notify_die() -> arm64_force_sig_fault() ->
arm64_show_signal().
arm64_show_signal() interprets a non-zero value for
current->thread.fault_code as an exception syndrome and displays the
message associated with the ESR_ELx.EC field (bits 31:26).
current->thread.fault_code is set in compat_arm_syscall() ->
arm64_notify_die() with the bad syscall number instead of a valid ESR_ELx
value. This means that the ESR_ELx.EC field has the value that the user set
for the syscall number and the kernel can end up printing bogus exception
messages*. For example, for the syscall number 0x68000000, which evaluates
to ESR_ELx.EC value of 0x1A (ESR_ELx_EC_FPAC) the kernel prints this error:
[ 18.349161] syscall[300]: unhandled exception: ERET/ERETAA/ERETAB, ESR 0x68000000, Oops - bad compat syscall(2) in syscall[10000+50000]
[ 18.350639] CPU: 2 PID: 300 Comm: syscall Not tainted 5.18.0-rc1 #79
[ 18.351249] Hardware name: Pine64 RockPro64 v2.0 (DT)
[..]
which is misleading, as the bad compat syscall has nothing to do with
pointer authentication.
Stop arm64_show_signal() from printing exception syndrome information by
having compat_arm_syscall() set the ESR_ELx value to 0, as it has no
meaning for an invalid system call number. The example above now becomes:
[ 19.935275] syscall[301]: unhandled exception: Oops - bad compat syscall(2) in syscall[10000+50000]
[ 19.936124] CPU: 1 PID: 301 Comm: syscall Not tainted 5.18.0-rc1-00005-g7e08006d4102 #80
[ 19.936894] Hardware name: Pine64 RockPro64 v2.0 (DT)
[..]
which although shows less information because the syscall number,
wrongfully advertised as the ESR value, is missing, it is better than
showing plainly wrong information. The syscall number can be easily
obtained with strace.
*A 32-bit value above or equal to 0x8000_0000 is interpreted as a negative
integer in compat_arm_syscal() and the condition scno < __ARM_NR_COMPAT_END
evaluates to true; the syscall will exit to userspace in this case with the
ENOSYS error code instead of arm64_notify_die() being called.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (5.5): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 5.5 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 5.5 MEDIUMCVSS-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 2026-10-25). 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