In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
fs: Prevent file descriptor table allocations exceeding INT_MAX
When sysctl_nr_open is set to a very high value (for example, 1073741816
as set by systemd), processes attempting to use file descriptors near
the limit can trigger massive memory allocation attempts that exceed
INT_MAX, resulting in a WARNING in mm/slub.c:
WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 44 at mm/slub.c:5027 __kvmalloc_node_noprof+0x21a/0x288
This happens because kvmalloc_array() and kvmalloc() check if the
requested size exceeds INT_MAX and emit a warning when the allocation is
not flagged with __GFP_NOWARN.
Specifically, when nr_open is set to 1073741816 (0x3ffffff8) and a
process calls dup2(oldfd, 1073741880), the kernel attempts to allocate:
- File descriptor array: 1073741880 * 8 bytes = 8,589,935,040 bytes
- Multiple bitmaps: ~400MB
- Total allocation size: > 8GB (exceeding INT_MAX = 2,147,483,647)
Reproducer:
- Set /proc/sys/fs/nr_open to 1073741816:
# echo 1073741816 > /proc/sys/fs/nr_open
- Run a program that uses a high file descriptor:
#include
#include
int main() {
struct rlimit rlim = {1073741824, 1073741824};
setrlimit(RLIMIT_NOFILE, &rlim);
dup2(2, 1073741880); // Triggers the warning
return 0;
}
- Observe WARNING in dmesg at mm/slub.c:5027
systemd commit a8b627a introduced automatic bumping of fs.nr_open to the
maximum possible value. The rationale was that systems with memory
control groups (memcg) no longer need separate file descriptor limits
since memory is properly accounted. However, this change overlooked
that:
- The kernel's allocation functions still enforce INT_MAX as a maximum
size regardless of memcg accounting
- Programs and tests that legitimately test file descriptor limits can
inadvertently trigger massive allocations
- The resulting allocations (>8GB) are impractical and will always fail
systemd's algorithm starts with INT_MAX and keeps halving the value
until the kernel accepts it. On most systems, this results in nr_open
being set to 1073741816 (0x3ffffff8), which is just under 1GB of file
descriptors.
While processes rarely use file descriptors near this limit in normal
operation, certain selftests (like
tools/testing/selftests/core/unshare_test.c) and programs that test file
descriptor limits can trigger this issue.
Fix this by adding a check in alloc_fdtable() to ensure the requested
allocation size does not exceed INT_MAX. This causes the operation to
fail with -EMFILE instead of triggering a kernel warning and avoids the
impractical >8GB memory allocation request.
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