In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
irqchip/gicv3: Workaround for NVIDIA erratum T241-FABRIC-4
The T241 platform suffers from the T241-FABRIC-4 erratum which causes
unexpected behavior in the GIC when multiple transactions are received
simultaneously from different sources. This hardware issue impacts
NVIDIA server platforms that use more than two T241 chips
interconnected. Each chip has support for 320 {E}SPIs.
This issue occurs when multiple packets from different GICs are
incorrectly interleaved at the target chip. The erratum text below
specifies exactly what can cause multiple transfer packets susceptible
to interleaving and GIC state corruption. GIC state corruption can
lead to a range of problems, including kernel panics, and unexpected
behavior.
>From the erratum text:
"In some cases, inter-socket AXI4 Stream packets with multiple
transfers, may be interleaved by the fabric when presented to ARM
Generic Interrupt Controller. GIC expects all transfers of a packet
to be delivered without any interleaving.
The following GICv3 commands may result in multiple transfer packets
over inter-socket AXI4 Stream interface:
- Register reads from GICD_I* and GICD_N*
- Register writes to 64-bit GICD registers other than GICD_IROUTERn*
- ITS command MOVALL
Multiple commands in GICv4+ utilize multiple transfer packets,
including VMOVP, VMOVI, VMAPP, and 64-bit register accesses."
This issue impacts system configurations with more than 2 sockets,
that require multi-transfer packets to be sent over inter-socket
AXI4 Stream interface between GIC instances on different sockets.
GICv4 cannot be supported. GICv3 SW model can only be supported
with the workaround. Single and Dual socket configurations are not
impacted by this issue and support GICv3 and GICv4."
Writing to the chip alias region of the GICD_In{E} registers except
GICD_ICENABLERn has an equivalent effect as writing to the global
distributor. The SPI interrupt deactivate path is not impacted by
the erratum.
To fix this problem, implement a workaround that ensures read accesses
to the GICD_In{E} registers are directed to the chip that owns the
SPI, and disable GICv4.x features. To simplify code changes, the
gic_configure_irq() function uses the same alias region for both read
and write operations to GICD_ICFGR.
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
- 0.1% 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 every mission impact level.CISA BOD 26-04: 60 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 every mission impact level.
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (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)60 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 partial (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