In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
security/keys: fix slab-out-of-bounds in key_task_permission
KASAN reports an out of bounds read:
BUG: KASAN: slab-out-of-bounds in __kuid_val include/linux/uidgid.h:36
BUG: KASAN: slab-out-of-bounds in uid_eq include/linux/uidgid.h:63 [inline]
BUG: KASAN: slab-out-of-bounds in key_task_permission+0x394/0x410
security/keys/permission.c:54
Read of size 4 at addr ffff88813c3ab618 by task stress-ng/4362
CPU: 2 PID: 4362 Comm: stress-ng Not tainted 5.10.0-14930-gafbffd6c3ede #15
Call Trace:
__dump_stack lib/dump_stack.c:82 [inline]
dump_stack+0x107/0x167 lib/dump_stack.c:123
print_address_description.constprop.0+0x19/0x170 mm/kasan/report.c:400
__kasan_report.cold+0x6c/0x84 mm/kasan/report.c:560
kasan_report+0x3a/0x50 mm/kasan/report.c:585
__kuid_val include/linux/uidgid.h:36 [inline]
uid_eq include/linux/uidgid.h:63 [inline]
key_task_permission+0x394/0x410 security/keys/permission.c:54
search_nested_keyrings+0x90e/0xe90 security/keys/keyring.c:793
This issue was also reported by syzbot.
It can be reproduced by following these steps(more details [1]):
- Obtain more than 32 inputs that have similar hashes, which ends with the
pattern '0xxxxxxxe6'.
- Reboot and add the keys obtained in step 1.
The reproducer demonstrates how this issue happened:
- In the search_nested_keyrings function, when it iterates through the
slots in a node(below tag ascend_to_node), if the slot pointer is meta
and node->back_pointer != NULL(it means a root), it will proceed to
descend_to_node. However, there is an exception. If node is the root,
and one of the slots points to a shortcut, it will be treated as a
keyring.
- Whether the ptr is keyring decided by keyring_ptr_is_keyring function.
However, KEYRING_PTR_SUBTYPE is 0x2UL, the same as
ASSOC_ARRAY_PTR_SUBTYPE_MASK.
- When 32 keys with the similar hashes are added to the tree, the ROOT
has keys with hashes that are not similar (e.g. slot 0) and it splits
NODE A without using a shortcut. When NODE A is filled with keys that
all hashes are xxe6, the keys are similar, NODE A will split with a
shortcut. Finally, it forms the tree as shown below, where slot 6 points
to a shortcut.
NODE A
+------>+---+
ROOT | | 0 | xxe6
+---+ | +---+
xxxx | 0 | shortcut : : xxe6
+---+ | +---+
xxe6 : : | | | xxe6
+---+ | +---+
| 6 |---+ : : xxe6
+---+ +---+
xxe6 : : | f | xxe6
+---+ +---+
xxe6 | f |
+---+
- As mentioned above, If a slot(slot 6) of the root points to a shortcut,
it may be mistakenly transferred to a key*, leading to a read
out-of-bounds read.
To fix this issue, one should jump to descend_to_node if the ptr is a
shortcut, regardless of whether the node is root or not.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kernel/1cfa878e-8c7b-4570-8606-21daf5e13ce7@huaweicloud.com/
[jarkko: tweaked the commit message a bit to have an appropriate closes
tag.]
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.1): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.1 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.1 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.3% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-29). 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