In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
topology: Keep the cpumask unchanged when printing cpumap
During fuzz testing, the following warning was discovered:
different return values (15 and 11) from vsnprintf("%*pbl
", ...)
test:keyward is WARNING in kvasprintf
WARNING: CPU: 55 PID: 1168477 at lib/kasprintf.c:30 kvasprintf+0x121/0x130
Call Trace:
kvasprintf+0x121/0x130
kasprintf+0xa6/0xe0
bitmap_print_to_buf+0x89/0x100
core_siblings_list_read+0x7e/0xb0
kernfs_file_read_iter+0x15b/0x270
new_sync_read+0x153/0x260
vfs_read+0x215/0x290
ksys_read+0xb9/0x160
do_syscall_64+0x56/0x100
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x78/0xe2
The call trace shows that kvasprintf() reported this warning during the
printing of core_siblings_list. kvasprintf() has several steps:
(1) First, calculate the length of the resulting formatted string.
(2) Allocate a buffer based on the returned length.
(3) Then, perform the actual string formatting.
(4) Check whether the lengths of the formatted strings returned in
steps (1) and (2) are consistent.
If the core_cpumask is modified between steps (1) and (3), the lengths
obtained in these two steps may not match. Indeed our test includes cpu
hotplugging, which should modify core_cpumask while printing.
To fix this issue, cache the cpumask into a temporary variable before
calling cpumap_print_{list, cpumask}_to_buf(), to keep it unchanged
during the printing process.
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.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.2% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-28). 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