In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
bpf: Fix kmemleak warning for percpu hashmap
Vlad Poenaru reported the following kmemleak issue:
unreferenced object 0x606fd7c44ac8 (size 32):
backtrace (crc 0):
pcpu_alloc_noprof+0x730/0xeb0
bpf_map_alloc_percpu+0x69/0xc0
prealloc_init+0x9d/0x1b0
htab_map_alloc+0x363/0x510
map_create+0x215/0x3a0
__sys_bpf+0x16b/0x3e0
__x64_sys_bpf+0x18/0x20
do_syscall_64+0x7b/0x150
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x4b/0x53
Further investigation shows the reason is due to not 8-byte aligned
store of percpu pointer in htab_elem_set_ptr():
*(void __percpu **)(l->key + key_size) = pptr;
Note that the whole htab_elem alignment is 8 (for x86_64). If the key_size
is 4, that means pptr is stored in a location which is 4 byte aligned but
not 8 byte aligned. In mm/kmemleak.c, scan_block() scans the memory based
on 8 byte stride, so it won't detect above pptr, hence reporting the memory
leak.
In htab_map_alloc(), we already have
htab->elem_size = sizeof(struct htab_elem) +
round_up(htab->map.key_size, 8);
if (percpu)
htab->elem_size += sizeof(void *);
else
htab->elem_size += round_up(htab->map.value_size, 8);
So storing pptr with 8-byte alignment won't cause any problem and can fix
kmemleak too.
The issue can be reproduced with bpf selftest as well:
- Enable CONFIG_DEBUG_KMEMLEAK config
- Add a getchar() before skel destroy in test_hash_map() in prog_tests/for_each.c.
The purpose is to keep map available so kmemleak can be detected.
- run './test_progs -t for_each/hash_map &' and a kmemleak should be reported.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (5.5): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 5.5 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 5.5 MEDIUMCVSS-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 2026-10-29). 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