In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
x86/ioapic: Handle allocation failures gracefully
Breno observed panics when using failslab under certain conditions during
runtime:
can not alloc irq_pin_list (-1,0,20)
Kernel panic - not syncing: IO-APIC: failed to add irq-pin. Can not proceed
panic+0x4e9/0x590
mp_irqdomain_alloc+0x9ab/0xa80
irq_domain_alloc_irqs_locked+0x25d/0x8d0
__irq_domain_alloc_irqs+0x80/0x110
mp_map_pin_to_irq+0x645/0x890
acpi_register_gsi_ioapic+0xe6/0x150
hpet_open+0x313/0x480
That's a pointless panic which is a leftover of the historic IO/APIC code
which panic'ed during early boot when the interrupt allocation failed.
The only place which might justify panic is the PIT/HPET timer_check() code
which tries to figure out whether the timer interrupt is delivered through
the IO/APIC. But that code does not require to handle interrupt allocation
failures. If the interrupt cannot be allocated then timer delivery fails
and it either panics due to that or falls back to legacy mode.
Cure this by removing the panic wrapper around __add_pin_to_irq_node() and
making mp_irqdomain_alloc() aware of the failure condition and handle it as
any other failure in this function gracefully.
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
- 0.2% 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