In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
KVM: x86/pmu: Disable support for adaptive PEBS
Drop support for virtualizing adaptive PEBS, as KVM's implementation is
architecturally broken without an obvious/easy path forward, and because
exposing adaptive PEBS can leak host LBRs to the guest, i.e. can leak
host kernel addresses to the guest.
Bug #1 is that KVM doesn't account for the upper 32 bits of
IA32_FIXED_CTR_CTRL when (re)programming fixed counters, e.g
fixed_ctrl_field() drops the upper bits, reprogram_fixed_counters()
stores local variables as u8s and truncates the upper bits too, etc.
Bug #2 is that, because KVM _always_ sets precise_ip to a non-zero value
for PEBS events, perf will _always_ generate an adaptive record, even if
the guest requested a basic record. Note, KVM will also enable adaptive
PEBS in individual *counter*, even if adaptive PEBS isn't exposed to the
guest, but this is benign as MSR_PEBS_DATA_CFG is guaranteed to be zero,
i.e. the guest will only ever see Basic records.
Bug #3 is in perf. intel_pmu_disable_fixed() doesn't clear the upper
bits either, i.e. leaves ICL_FIXED_0_ADAPTIVE set, and
intel_pmu_enable_fixed() effectively doesn't clear ICL_FIXED_0_ADAPTIVE
either. I.e. perf _always_ enables ADAPTIVE counters, regardless of what
KVM requests.
Bug #4 is that adaptive PEBS *might* effectively bypass event filters set
by the host, as "Updated Memory Access Info Group" records information
that might be disallowed by userspace via KVM_SET_PMU_EVENT_FILTER.
Bug #5 is that KVM doesn't ensure LBR MSRs hold guest values (or at least
zeros) when entering a vCPU with adaptive PEBS, which allows the guest
to read host LBRs, i.e. host RIPs/addresses, by enabling "LBR Entries"
records.
Disable adaptive PEBS support as an immediate fix due to the severity of
the LBR leak in particular, and because fixing all of the bugs will be
non-trivial, e.g. not suitable for backporting to stable kernels.
Note! This will break live migration, but trying to make KVM play nice
with live migration would be quite complicated, wouldn't be guaranteed to
work (i.e. KVM might still kill/confuse the guest), and it's not clear
that there are any publicly available VMMs that support adaptive PEBS,
let alone live migrate VMs that support adaptive PEBS, e.g. QEMU doesn't
support PEBS in any capacity.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (3.3): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 3.3 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 3.3 LOWCVSS-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 2026-10-26). 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