In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
parisc: Fix random data corruption from exception handler
The current exception handler implementation, which assists when accessing
user space memory, may exhibit random data corruption if the compiler decides
to use a different register than the specified register %r29 (defined in
ASM_EXCEPTIONTABLE_REG) for the error code. If the compiler choose another
register, the fault handler will nevertheless store -EFAULT into %r29 and thus
trash whatever this register is used for.
Looking at the assembly I found that this happens sometimes in emulate_ldd().
To solve the issue, the easiest solution would be if it somehow is
possible to tell the fault handler which register is used to hold the error
code. Using %0 or %1 in the inline assembly is not posssible as it will show
up as e.g. %r29 (with the "%r" prefix), which the GNU assembler can not
convert to an integer.
This patch takes another, better and more flexible approach:
We extend the __ex_table (which is out of the execution path) by one 32-word.
In this word we tell the compiler to insert the assembler instruction
"or %r0,%r0,%reg", where %reg references the register which the compiler
choosed for the error return code.
In case of an access failure, the fault handler finds the __ex_table entry and
can examine the opcode. The used register is encoded in the lowest 5 bits, and
the fault handler can then store -EFAULT into this register.
Since we extend the __ex_table to 3 words we can't use the BUILDTIME_TABLE_SORT
config option any longer.
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
- 0.3% 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