In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
dm log: fix out-of-bounds write due to region_count overflow
The local variable region_count in create_log_context() is declared as
unsigned int (32-bit), but dm_sector_div_up() returns sector_t (64-bit).
When a device-mapper target has a sufficiently large ti->len with a small
region_size, the division result can exceed UINT_MAX. The truncated
value is then used to calculate bitset_size, causing clean_bits,
sync_bits, and recovering_bits to be allocated far smaller than needed
for the actual number of regions.
Subsequent log operations (log_set_bit, log_clear_bit, log_test_bit) use
region indices derived from the full untruncated region space, causing
out-of-bounds writes to kernel heap memory allocated by vmalloc.
This can be reproduced by creating a mirror target whose region_count
overflows 32 bits:
dmsetup create bigzero --table '0 8589934594 zero'
dmsetup create mymirror --table '0 8589934594 mirror \
core 2 2 nosync 2 /dev/mapper/bigzero 0 \
/dev/mapper/bigzero 0'
The status output confirms the truncation (sync_count=1 instead of
4294967297, because 0x100000001 was truncated to 1):
$ dmsetup status mymirror
0 8589934594 mirror 2 254:1 254:1 1/4294967297 ...
This leads to a kernel crash in core_in_sync:
BUG: scheduling while atomic: (udev-worker)/9150/0x00000000
RIP: 0010:core_in_sync+0x14/0x30 [dm_log]
CR2: 0000000000000008
Fixing recursive fault but reboot is needed!
Fix by widening the local region_count to sector_t and adding an
explicit overflow check before the value is assigned to lc->region_count.
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.NVD CVSS v3 · CVSS v3.0 or v3.1
- EG Likelihood
- 0.1% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-29). 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