In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
drivers/virt/acrn: fix PFNMAP PTE checks in acrn_vm_ram_map()
Patch series "mm: follow_pte() improvements and acrn follow_pte() fixes".
Patch #1 fixes a bunch of issues I spotted in the acrn driver. It
compiles, that's all I know. I'll appreciate some review and testing from
acrn folks.
Patch #2+#3 improve follow_pte(), passing a VMA instead of the MM, adding
more sanity checks, and improving the documentation. Gave it a quick test
on x86-64 using VM_PAT that ends up using follow_pte().
This patch (of 3):
We currently miss handling various cases, resulting in a dangerous
follow_pte() (previously follow_pfn()) usage.
(1) We're not checking PTE write permissions.
Maybe we should simply always require pte_write() like we do for
pin_user_pages_fast(FOLL_WRITE)? Hard to tell, so let's check for
ACRN_MEM_ACCESS_WRITE for now.
(2) We're not rejecting refcounted pages.
As we are not using MMU notifiers, messing with refcounted pages is
dangerous and can result in use-after-free. Let's make sure to reject them.
(3) We are only looking at the first PTE of a bigger range.
We only lookup a single PTE, but memmap->len may span a larger area.
Let's loop over all involved PTEs and make sure the PFN range is
actually contiguous. Reject everything else: it couldn't have worked
either way, and rather made use access PFNs we shouldn't be accessing.
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 2026-10-27). 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