In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
mm: resolve faulty mmap_region() error path behaviour
The mmap_region() function is somewhat terrifying, with spaghetti-like
control flow and numerous means by which issues can arise and incomplete
state, memory leaks and other unpleasantness can occur.
A large amount of the complexity arises from trying to handle errors late
in the process of mapping a VMA, which forms the basis of recently
observed issues with resource leaks and observable inconsistent state.
Taking advantage of previous patches in this series we move a number of
checks earlier in the code, simplifying things by moving the core of the
logic into a static internal function __mmap_region().
Doing this allows us to perform a number of checks up front before we do
any real work, and allows us to unwind the writable unmap check
unconditionally as required and to perform a CONFIG_DEBUG_VM_MAPLE_TREE
validation unconditionally also.
We move a number of things here:
- We preallocate memory for the iterator before we call the file-backed
memory hook, allowing us to exit early and avoid having to perform
complicated and error-prone close/free logic. We carefully free
iterator state on both success and error paths.
- The enclosing mmap_region() function handles the mapping_map_writable()
logic early. Previously the logic had the mapping_map_writable() at the
point of mapping a newly allocated file-backed VMA, and a matching
mapping_unmap_writable() on success and error paths.
We now do this unconditionally if this is a file-backed, shared writable
mapping. If a driver changes the flags to eliminate VM_MAYWRITE, however
doing so does not invalidate the seal check we just performed, and we in
any case always decrement the counter in the wrapper.
We perform a debug assert to ensure a driver does not attempt to do the
opposite.
- We also move arch_validate_flags() up into the mmap_region()
function. This is only relevant on arm64 and sparc64, and the check is
only meaningful for SPARC with ADI enabled. We explicitly add a warning
for this arch if a driver invalidates this check, though the code ought
eventually to be fixed to eliminate the need for this.
With all of these measures in place, we no longer need to explicitly close
the VMA on error paths, as we place all checks which might fail prior to a
call to any driver mmap hook.
This eliminates an entire class of errors, makes the code easier to reason
about and more robust.
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.NVD CVSS v3 · CVSS v3.0 or v3.1
- EG Likelihood
- 0.3% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-11-02). 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 (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (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)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 Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (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