In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
KVM: x86: Fix shadow paging use-after-free due to unexpected GFN
The shadow MMU computes GFNs for direct shadow pages using sp->gfn plus
the SPTE index. This assumption breaks for shadow paging if the guest
page tables are modified between VM entries (similar to commit
aad885e77496, "KVM: x86/mmu: Drop/zap existing present SPTE even
when creating an MMIO SPTE", 2026-03-27). The flow is as follows:
- a PDE is installed for a 2MB mapping, and a page in that area is
accessed. KVM creates a kvm_mmu_page consisting of 512 4KB pages;
the kvm_mmu_page is marked by FNAME(fetch) as direct-mapped because
the guest's mapping is a huge page (and thus contiguous).
- the PDE mapping is changed from outside the guest.
- the guest accesses another page in the same 2MB area. KVM installs
a new leaf SPTE and rmap entry; the SPTE uses the "correct" GFN
(i.e. based on the new mapping, as changed in the previous step) but
that GFN is outside of the [sp->gfn, sp->gfn + 511] range; therefore
the rmap entry cannot be found and removed when the kvm_mmu_page
is zapped.
- the memslot that covers the first 2MB mapping is deleted, and the
kvm_mmu_page for the now-invalid GPA is zapped. However, rmap_remove()
only looks at the [sp->gfn, sp->gfn + 511] range established in step 1,
and fails to find the rmap entry that was recorded by step 3.
- any operation that causes an rmap walk for the same page accessed
by step 3 then walks a stale rmap and dereferences a freed kvm_mmu_page.
This includes dirty logging or MMU notifier invalidations (e.g., from
MADV_DONTNEED).
The underlying issue is that KVM's walking of shadow PTEs assumes that
if a SPTE is present when KVM wants to install a non-leaf SPTE, then the
existing kvm_mmu_page must be for the correct gfn. Because the only way
for the gfn to be wrong is if KVM messed up and failed to zap a SPTE...
which shouldn't happen, but *actually* only happens in response to a
guest write.
That bug dates back literally forever, as even the first version of KVM
assumes that the GFN matches and walks into the "wrong" shadow page.
However, that was only an imprecision until 2032a93d66fa ("KVM: MMU:
Don't allocate gfns page for direct mmu pages") came along.
Fix it by checking for a target gfn mismatch and zapping the existing
SPTE. That way the old SP and rmap entries are gone, KVM installs
the rmap in the right location, and everyone is happy.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (8.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 8.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 8.8 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 2026-10-27). 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 (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (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 Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (CISA Vulnrichment). 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