In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
perf: Improve missing SIGTRAP checking
To catch missing SIGTRAP we employ a WARN in __perf_event_overflow(),
which fires if pending_sigtrap was already set: returning to user space
without consuming pending_sigtrap, and then having the event fire again
would re-enter the kernel and trigger the WARN.
This, however, seemed to miss the case where some events not associated
with progress in the user space task can fire and the interrupt handler
runs before the IRQ work meant to consume pending_sigtrap (and generate
the SIGTRAP).
syzbot gifted us this stack trace:
| WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 3607 at kernel/events/core.c:9313 __perf_event_overflow
| Modules linked in:
| CPU: 0 PID: 3607 Comm: syz-executor100 Not tainted 6.1.0-rc2-syzkaller-00073-g88619e77b33d #0
| Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS Google 10/11/2022
| RIP: 0010:__perf_event_overflow+0x498/0x540 kernel/events/core.c:9313
| <...>
| Call Trace:
|
| perf_swevent_hrtimer+0x34f/0x3c0 kernel/events/core.c:10729
| __run_hrtimer kernel/time/hrtimer.c:1685 [inline]
| __hrtimer_run_queues+0x1c6/0xfb0 kernel/time/hrtimer.c:1749
| hrtimer_interrupt+0x31c/0x790 kernel/time/hrtimer.c:1811
| local_apic_timer_interrupt arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c:1096 [inline]
| __sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x17c/0x640 arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c:1113
| sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x40/0xc0 arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c:1107
| asm_sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x16/0x20 arch/x86/include/asm/idtentry.h:649
| <...>
|
In this case, syzbot produced a program with event type
PERF_TYPE_SOFTWARE and config PERF_COUNT_SW_CPU_CLOCK. The hrtimer
manages to fire again before the IRQ work got a chance to run, all while
never having returned to user space.
Improve the WARN to check for real progress in user space: approximate
this by storing a 32-bit hash of the current IP into pending_sigtrap,
and if an event fires while pending_sigtrap still matches the previous
IP, we assume no progress (false negatives are possible given we could
return to user space and trigger again on the same IP).
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
- 0.2% 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