In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
perf/core: Fix perf_output_begin parameter is incorrectly invoked in perf_event_bpf_output
syzkaller reportes a KASAN issue with stack-out-of-bounds.
The call trace is as follows:
dump_stack+0x9c/0xd3
print_address_description.constprop.0+0x19/0x170
__kasan_report.cold+0x6c/0x84
kasan_report+0x3a/0x50
__perf_event_header__init_id+0x34/0x290
perf_event_header__init_id+0x48/0x60
perf_output_begin+0x4a4/0x560
perf_event_bpf_output+0x161/0x1e0
perf_iterate_sb_cpu+0x29e/0x340
perf_iterate_sb+0x4c/0xc0
perf_event_bpf_event+0x194/0x2c0
__bpf_prog_put.constprop.0+0x55/0xf0
__cls_bpf_delete_prog+0xea/0x120 [cls_bpf]
cls_bpf_delete_prog_work+0x1c/0x30 [cls_bpf]
process_one_work+0x3c2/0x730
worker_thread+0x93/0x650
kthread+0x1b8/0x210
ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30
commit 267fb27352b6 ("perf: Reduce stack usage of perf_output_begin()")
use on-stack struct perf_sample_data of the caller function.
However, perf_event_bpf_output uses incorrect parameter to convert
small-sized data (struct perf_bpf_event) into large-sized data
(struct perf_sample_data), which causes memory overwriting occurs in
__perf_event_header__init_id.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.8 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 2026-10-30). 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 (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (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)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 Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (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