In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
dm raid: fix address sanitizer warning in raid_status
There is this warning when using a kernel with the address sanitizer
and running this testsuite:
https://gitlab.com/cki-project/kernel-tests/-/tree/main/storage/swraid/scsi_raid
==================================================================
BUG: KASAN: slab-out-of-bounds in raid_status+0x1747/0x2820 [dm_raid]
Read of size 4 at addr ffff888079d2c7e8 by task lvcreate/13319
CPU: 0 PID: 13319 Comm: lvcreate Not tainted 5.18.0-0.rc3. #1
Hardware name: Red Hat KVM, BIOS 0.5.1 01/01/2011
Call Trace:
dump_stack_lvl+0x6a/0x9c
print_address_description.constprop.0+0x1f/0x1e0
print_report.cold+0x55/0x244
kasan_report+0xc9/0x100
raid_status+0x1747/0x2820 [dm_raid]
dm_ima_measure_on_table_load+0x4b8/0xca0 [dm_mod]
table_load+0x35c/0x630 [dm_mod]
ctl_ioctl+0x411/0x630 [dm_mod]
dm_ctl_ioctl+0xa/0x10 [dm_mod]
__x64_sys_ioctl+0x12a/0x1a0
do_syscall_64+0x5b/0x80
The warning is caused by reading conf->max_nr_stripes in raid_status. The
code in raid_status reads mddev->private, casts it to struct r5conf and
reads the entry max_nr_stripes.
However, if we have different raid type than 4/5/6, mddev->private
doesn't point to struct r5conf; it may point to struct r0conf, struct
r1conf, struct r10conf or struct mpconf. If we cast a pointer to one
of these structs to struct r5conf, we will be reading invalid memory
and KASAN warns about it.
Fix this bug by reading struct r5conf only if raid type is 4, 5 or 6.
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
- 0.2% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-28). 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