In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
mm: fix a UAF when vma->mm is freed after vma->vm_refcnt got dropped
By inducing delays in the right places, Jann Horn created a reproducer for
a hard to hit UAF issue that became possible after VMAs were allowed to be
recycled by adding SLAB_TYPESAFE_BY_RCU to their cache.
Race description is borrowed from Jann's discovery report:
lock_vma_under_rcu() looks up a VMA locklessly with mas_walk() under
rcu_read_lock(). At that point, the VMA may be concurrently freed, and it
can be recycled by another process. vma_start_read() then increments the
vma->vm_refcnt (if it is in an acceptable range), and if this succeeds,
vma_start_read() can return a recycled VMA.
In this scenario where the VMA has been recycled, lock_vma_under_rcu()
will then detect the mismatching ->vm_mm pointer and drop the VMA through
vma_end_read(), which calls vma_refcount_put(). vma_refcount_put() drops
the refcount and then calls rcuwait_wake_up() using a copy of vma->vm_mm.
This is wrong: It implicitly assumes that the caller is keeping the VMA's
mm alive, but in this scenario the caller has no relation to the VMA's mm,
so the rcuwait_wake_up() can cause UAF.
The diagram depicting the race:
T1 T2 T3
== == ==
lock_vma_under_rcu
mas_walk
mmap
vma_start_read
__refcount_inc_not_zero_limited_acquire
munmap
__vma_enter_locked
refcount_add_not_zero
vma_end_read
vma_refcount_put
__refcount_dec_and_test
rcuwait_wait_event
rcuwait_wake_up [UAF]
Note that rcuwait_wait_event() in T3 does not block because refcount was
already dropped by T1. At this point T3 can exit and free the mm causing
UAF in T1.
To avoid this we move vma->vm_mm verification into vma_start_read() and
grab vma->vm_mm to stabilize it before vma_refcount_put() operation.
[surenb@google.com: v3]
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 2026-10-30). 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 fixed version is listed under Patch Availability. 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