In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
mm: zswap: properly synchronize freeing resources during CPU hotunplug
In zswap_compress() and zswap_decompress(), the per-CPU acomp_ctx of the
current CPU at the beginning of the operation is retrieved and used
throughout. However, since neither preemption nor migration are disabled,
it is possible that the operation continues on a different CPU.
If the original CPU is hotunplugged while the acomp_ctx is still in use,
we run into a UAF bug as some of the resources attached to the acomp_ctx
are freed during hotunplug in zswap_cpu_comp_dead() (i.e.
acomp_ctx.buffer, acomp_ctx.req, or acomp_ctx.acomp).
The problem was introduced in commit 1ec3b5fe6eec ("mm/zswap: move to use
crypto_acomp API for hardware acceleration") when the switch to the
crypto_acomp API was made. Prior to that, the per-CPU crypto_comp was
retrieved using get_cpu_ptr() which disables preemption and makes sure the
CPU cannot go away from under us. Preemption cannot be disabled with the
crypto_acomp API as a sleepable context is needed.
Use the acomp_ctx.mutex to synchronize CPU hotplug callbacks allocating
and freeing resources with compression/decompression paths. Make sure
that acomp_ctx.req is NULL when the resources are freed. In the
compression/decompression paths, check if acomp_ctx.req is NULL after
acquiring the mutex (meaning the CPU was offlined) and retry on the new
CPU.
The initialization of acomp_ctx.mutex is moved from the CPU hotplug
callback to the pool initialization where it belongs (where the mutex is
allocated). In addition to adding clarity, this makes sure that CPU
hotplug cannot reinitialize a mutex that is already locked by
compression/decompression.
Previously a fix was attempted by holding cpus_read_lock() [1]. This
would have caused a potential deadlock as it is possible for code already
holding the lock to fall into reclaim and enter zswap (causing a
deadlock). A fix was also attempted using SRCU for synchronization, but
Johannes pointed out that synchronize_srcu() cannot be used in CPU hotplug
notifiers [2].
Alternative fixes that were considered/attempted and could have worked:
- Refcounting the per-CPU acomp_ctx. This involves complexity in
handling the race between the refcount dropping to zero in
zswap_[de]compress() and the refcount being re-initialized when the
CPU is onlined.
- Disabling migration before getting the per-CPU acomp_ctx [3], but
that's discouraged and is a much bigger hammer than needed, and could
result in subtle performance issues.
[1]https://lkml.kernel.org/20241219212437.2714151-1-yosryahmed@google.com/
[2]https://lkml.kernel.org/20250107074724.1756696-2-yosryahmed@google.com/
[3]https://lkml.kernel.org/20250107222236.2715883-2-yosryahmed@google.com/
[yosryahmed@google.com: remove comment]
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