In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
fork: do not invoke uffd on fork if error occurs
Patch series "fork: do not expose incomplete mm on fork".
During fork we may place the virtual memory address space into an
inconsistent state before the fork operation is complete.
In addition, we may encounter an error during the fork operation that
indicates that the virtual memory address space is invalidated.
As a result, we should not be exposing it in any way to external machinery
that might interact with the mm or VMAs, machinery that is not designed to
deal with incomplete state.
We specifically update the fork logic to defer khugepaged and ksm to the
end of the operation and only to be invoked if no error arose, and
disallow uffd from observing fork events should an error have occurred.
This patch (of 2):
Currently on fork we expose the virtual address space of a process to
userland unconditionally if uffd is registered in VMAs, regardless of
whether an error arose in the fork.
This is performed in dup_userfaultfd_complete() which is invoked
unconditionally, and performs two duties - invoking registered handlers
for the UFFD_EVENT_FORK event via dup_fctx(), and clearing down
userfaultfd_fork_ctx objects established in dup_userfaultfd().
This is problematic, because the virtual address space may not yet be
correctly initialised if an error arose.
The change in commit d24062914837 ("fork: use __mt_dup() to duplicate
maple tree in dup_mmap()") makes this more pertinent as we may be in a
state where entries in the maple tree are not yet consistent.
We address this by, on fork error, ensuring that we roll back state that
we would otherwise expect to clean up through the event being handled by
userland and perform the memory freeing duty otherwise performed by
dup_userfaultfd_complete().
We do this by implementing a new function, dup_userfaultfd_fail(), which
performs the same loop, only decrementing reference counts.
Note that we perform mmgrab() on the parent and child mm's, however
userfaultfd_ctx_put() will mmdrop() this once the reference count drops to
zero, so we will avoid memory leaks correctly here.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (4.7): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 4.7 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 4.7 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 low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 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 low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from 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)14 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's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). Where an input reads “CISA's BOD 26-04 default”, no one has published it for this CVE, and CISA's implementation guidance says: “If “Automatable” and “Technical Impact” information items about a CVE ID are not available and the CVE ID is not in the KEV Catalog, CISA will treat its values as “no” and “total,” respectively, until CISA or a third party provides metadata about the CVE ID. CISA will always provide the Vulnrichment data for a CVE ID listed in the KEV Catalog.” 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