In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
blk_iocost: fix more out of bound shifts
Recently running UBSAN caught few out of bound shifts in the
ioc_forgive_debts() function:
UBSAN: shift-out-of-bounds in block/blk-iocost.c:2142:38
shift exponent 80 is too large for 64-bit type 'u64' (aka 'unsigned long
long')
...
UBSAN: shift-out-of-bounds in block/blk-iocost.c:2144:30
shift exponent 80 is too large for 64-bit type 'u64' (aka 'unsigned long
long')
...
Call Trace:
dump_stack_lvl+0xca/0x130
__ubsan_handle_shift_out_of_bounds+0x22c/0x280
? __lock_acquire+0x6441/0x7c10
ioc_timer_fn+0x6cec/0x7750
? blk_iocost_init+0x720/0x720
? call_timer_fn+0x5d/0x470
call_timer_fn+0xfa/0x470
? blk_iocost_init+0x720/0x720
__run_timer_base+0x519/0x700
...
Actual impact of this issue was not identified but I propose to fix the
undefined behaviour.
The proposed fix to prevent those out of bound shifts consist of
precalculating exponent before using it the shift operations by taking
min value from the actual exponent and maximum possible number of bits.
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