In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
sched/mmcid: Fix OOB clear_bit when CID is MM_CID_UNSET in fixup path
In mm_cid_fixup_cpus_to_tasks(), when rq->curr has the target mm and
mm_cid.active is set, the CID is checked with cid_in_transit() before
setting the transition bit. In per-CPU mode a newly forked or exec'd
task can be running with mm_cid.cid == MM_CID_UNSET because CIDs are
assigned lazily on schedule-in. With cid_in_transit() the guard passes
for MM_CID_UNSET (no transit bit), converts it to MM_CID_UNSET |
MM_CID_TRANSIT and stores it back; later mm_cid_schedout() feeds this
to clear_bit() with MM_CID_UNSET as the bit number, triggering an
out-of-bounds write.
Symptoms: this is genuine memory corruption, but a bounded out-of-bounds
write, not an arbitrary one. MM_CID_UNSET is the fixed sentinel BIT(31),
so once the bad value reaches mm_cid_schedout() the cid_from_transit_cid()
strip leaves MM_CID_UNSET, which fails the "cid < max_cids" convergence
test and falls into mm_drop_cid() -> clear_bit(MM_CID_UNSET,
mm_cidmask(mm)). The cid bitmap is embedded in the mm_struct slab object
(after cpu_bitmap and mm_cpus_allowed) and is only num_possible_cpus()
bits wide, so clearing bit 31 is a deterministic OOB bit-clear at a
fixed offset of 2^31 / 8 == 256 MiB past the bitmap base. The address is
not attacker-influenced (fixed sentinel -> fixed offset) and the op only
clears a single bit; what sits 256 MiB further along the direct map is
whatever kernel object happens to live there, so this corrupts one bit of
unpredictable kernel memory -- it is not an arbitrary-address or
arbitrary-value write.
It triggers only in per-CPU CID mode, when a CPU is running an active
task of the target mm whose cid is still MM_CID_UNSET -- the
fork()/execve() window before that task's next schedule-in assigns it a
real CID -- and a per-CPU -> per-task fixup walks over it (the mode
fallback driven by a thread exit, sched_mm_cid_exit(), or by the deferred
max_cids recompute in mm_cid_work_fn()).
In practice syzkaller surfaced it as a KASAN use-after-free reported in
__schedule -> mm_cid_switch_to, where the offending clear_bit() is inlined
via mm_cid_schedout() -> mm_drop_cid().
Guard the transition-bit assignment against MM_CID_UNSET, in addition to
the existing cid_in_transit() check, so the bit is only set on a genuine
task-owned CID. A CPU-owned (MM_CID_ONCPU) CID of a running active task
is handled by the cid_on_cpu(pcp->cid) branch above and never reaches
this path, so excluding MM_CID_UNSET (and the already-transitioning case)
is sufficient.
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 2026-10-27). 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 (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