In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
x86/sgx: Prevent attempts to reclaim poisoned pages
TL;DR: SGX page reclaim touches the page to copy its contents to
secondary storage. SGX instructions do not gracefully handle machine
checks. Despite this, the existing SGX code will try to reclaim pages
that it _knows_ are poisoned. Avoid even trying to reclaim poisoned pages.
The longer story:
Pages used by an enclave only get epc_page->poison set in
arch_memory_failure() but they currently stay on sgx_active_page_list until
sgx_encl_release(), with the SGX_EPC_PAGE_RECLAIMER_TRACKED flag untouched.
epc_page->poison is not checked in the reclaimer logic meaning that, if other
conditions are met, an attempt will be made to reclaim an EPC page that was
poisoned. This is bad because 1. we don't want that page to end up added
to another enclave and 2. it is likely to cause one core to shut down
and the kernel to panic.
Specifically, reclaiming uses microcode operations including "EWB" which
accesses the EPC page contents to encrypt and write them out to non-SGX
memory. Those operations cannot handle MCEs in their accesses other than
by putting the executing core into a special shutdown state (affecting
both threads with HT.) The kernel will subsequently panic on the
remaining cores seeing the core didn't enter MCE handler(s) in time.
Call sgx_unmark_page_reclaimable() to remove the affected EPC page from
sgx_active_page_list on memory error to stop it being considered for
reclaiming.
Testing epc_page->poison in sgx_reclaim_pages() would also work but I assume
it's better to add code in the less likely paths.
The affected EPC page is not added to &node->sgx_poison_page_list until
later in sgx_encl_release()->sgx_free_epc_page() when it is EREMOVEd.
Membership on other lists doesn't change to avoid changing any of the
lists' semantics except for sgx_active_page_list. There's a "TBD" comment
in arch_memory_failure() about pre-emptive actions, the goal here is not
to address everything that it may imply.
This also doesn't completely close the time window when a memory error
notification will be fatal (for a not previously poisoned EPC page) --
the MCE can happen after sgx_reclaim_pages() has selected its candidates
or even *inside* a microcode operation (actually easy to trigger due to
the amount of time spent in them.)
The spinlock in sgx_unmark_page_reclaimable() is safe because
memory_failure() runs in process context and no spinlocks are held,
explicitly noted in a mm/memory-failure.c 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 (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 2026-10-24). 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