In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
perf/core: Fix WARN_ON(!ctx) in __free_event() for partial init
Move the get_ctx(child_ctx) call and the child_event->ctx assignment to
occur immediately after the child event is allocated. Ensure that
child_event->ctx is non-NULL before any subsequent error path within
inherit_event calls free_event(), satisfying the assumptions of the
cleanup code.
Details:
There's no clear Fixes tag, because this bug is a side-effect of
multiple interacting commits over time (up to 15 years old), not
a single regression.
The code initially incremented refcount then assigned context
immediately after the child_event was created. Later, an early
validity check for child_event was added before the
refcount/assignment. Even later, a WARN_ON_ONCE() cleanup check was
added, assuming event->ctx is valid if the pmu_ctx is valid.
The problem is that the WARN_ON_ONCE() could trigger after the initial
check passed but before child_event->ctx was assigned, violating its
precondition. The solution is to assign child_event->ctx right after
its initial validation. This ensures the context exists for any
subsequent checks or cleanup routines, resolving the WARN_ON_ONCE().
To resolve it, defer the refcount update and child_event->ctx assignment
directly after child_event->pmu_ctx is set but before checking if the
parent event is orphaned. The cleanup routine depends on
event->pmu_ctx being non-NULL before it verifies event->ctx is
non-NULL. This also maintains the author's original intent of passing
in child_ctx to find_get_pmu_context before its refcount/assignment.
[ mingo: Expanded the changelog from another email by Gabriel Shahrouzi. ]
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
- 0.3% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-25). 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