In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
s390/entry: Mark IRQ entries to fix stack depot warnings
The stack depot filters out everything outside of the top interrupt
context as an uninteresting or irrelevant part of the stack traces. This
helps with stack trace de-duplication, avoiding an explosion of saved
stack traces that share the same IRQ context code path but originate
from different randomly interrupted points, eventually exhausting the
stack depot.
Filtering uses in_irqentry_text() to identify functions within the
.irqentry.text and .softirqentry.text sections, which then become the
last stack trace entries being saved.
While __do_softirq() is placed into the .softirqentry.text section by
common code, populating .irqentry.text is architecture-specific.
Currently, the .irqentry.text section on s390 is empty, which prevents
stack depot filtering and de-duplication and could result in warnings
like:
Stack depot reached limit capacity
WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 286113 at lib/stackdepot.c:252 depot_alloc_stack+0x39a/0x3c8
with PREEMPT and KASAN enabled.
Fix this by moving the IO/EXT interrupt handlers from .kprobes.text into
the .irqentry.text section and updating the kprobes blacklist to include
the .irqentry.text section.
This is done only for asynchronous interrupts and explicitly not for
program checks, which are synchronous and where the context beyond the
program check is important to preserve. Despite machine checks being
somewhat in between, they are extremely rare, and preserving context
when possible is also of value.
SVCs and Restart Interrupts are not relevant, one being always at the
boundary to user space and the other being a one-time thing.
IRQ entries filtering is also optionally used in ftrace function graph,
where the same logic applies.
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
- 0.2% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-27). 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