In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
hugetlbfs: fix null-ptr-deref in hugetlbfs_parse_param()
Syzkaller reports a null-ptr-deref bug as follows:
======================================================
KASAN: null-ptr-deref in range [0x0000000000000000-0x0000000000000007]
RIP: 0010:hugetlbfs_parse_param+0x1dd/0x8e0 fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c:1380
[...]
Call Trace:
vfs_parse_fs_param fs/fs_context.c:148 [inline]
vfs_parse_fs_param+0x1f9/0x3c0 fs/fs_context.c:129
vfs_parse_fs_string+0xdb/0x170 fs/fs_context.c:191
generic_parse_monolithic+0x16f/0x1f0 fs/fs_context.c:231
do_new_mount fs/namespace.c:3036 [inline]
path_mount+0x12de/0x1e20 fs/namespace.c:3370
do_mount fs/namespace.c:3383 [inline]
__do_sys_mount fs/namespace.c:3591 [inline]
__se_sys_mount fs/namespace.c:3568 [inline]
__x64_sys_mount+0x27f/0x300 fs/namespace.c:3568
do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:50 [inline]
do_syscall_64+0x35/0xb0 arch/x86/entry/common.c:80
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd
[...]
======================================================
According to commit "vfs: parse: deal with zero length string value",
kernel will set the param->string to null pointer in vfs_parse_fs_string()
if fs string has zero length.
Yet the problem is that, hugetlbfs_parse_param() will dereference the
param->string, without checking whether it is a null pointer. To be more
specific, if hugetlbfs_parse_param() parses an illegal mount parameter,
such as "size=,", kernel will constructs struct fs_parameter with null
pointer in vfs_parse_fs_string(), then passes this struct fs_parameter to
hugetlbfs_parse_param(), which triggers the above null-ptr-deref bug.
This patch solves it by adding sanity check on param->string
in hugetlbfs_parse_param().
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