In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
bpf: Reject struct_ops registration that uses module ptr and the module btf_id is missing
There is a UAF report in the bpf_struct_ops when CONFIG_MODULES=n.
In particular, the report is on tcp_congestion_ops that has
a "struct module *owner" member.
For struct_ops that has a "struct module *owner" member,
it can be extended either by the regular kernel module or
by the bpf_struct_ops. bpf_try_module_get() will be used
to do the refcounting and different refcount is done
based on the owner pointer. When CONFIG_MODULES=n,
the btf_id of the "struct module" is missing:
WARN: resolve_btfids: unresolved symbol module
Thus, the bpf_try_module_get() cannot do the correct refcounting.
Not all subsystem's struct_ops requires the "struct module *owner" member.
e.g. the recent sched_ext_ops.
This patch is to disable bpf_struct_ops registration if
the struct_ops has the "struct module *" member and the
"struct module" btf_id is missing. The btf_type_is_fwd() helper
is moved to the btf.h header file for this test.
This has happened since the beginning of bpf_struct_ops which has gone
through many changes. The Fixes tag is set to a recent commit that this
patch can apply cleanly. Considering CONFIG_MODULES=n is not
common and the age of the issue, targeting for bpf-next also.
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 2026-10-27). 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 (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