In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
bpf: Allow LPM map access from sleepable BPF programs
trie_lookup_elem() annotates its rcu_dereference_check() walks with
only rcu_read_lock_bh_held(). Because rcu_dereference_check(p, c)
resolves to "c || rcu_read_lock_held()", this passes for XDP/NAPI and
classic RCU readers but fails for sleepable BPF programs, which enter
via __bpf_prog_enter_sleepable() and hold only rcu_read_lock_trace().
trie_update_elem() and trie_delete_elem() have the same problem in a
different form: they walk the trie with plain rcu_dereference(), which
asserts rcu_read_lock_held() unconditionally. Both are reachable from
sleepable BPF programs via the bpf_map_update_elem / bpf_map_delete_elem
helpers, and from the syscall path under classic rcu_read_lock(). In
the writer paths the trie is actually protected by trie->lock (an
rqspinlock taken across the walk); we never relied on the RCU read-side
lock to keep nodes alive there.
A sleepable LSM hook that ends up touching an LPM trie therefore
triggers lockdep on debug kernels:
=============================
WARNING: suspicious RCU usage
7.1.0-... Tainted: G E
-----------------------------
kernel/bpf/lpm_trie.c:249 suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage!
1 lock held by net_tests/540:
#0: (rcu_tasks_trace_srcu_struct){....}-{0:0},
at: __bpf_prog_enter_sleepable+0x26/0x280
Call Trace:
dump_stack_lvl
lockdep_rcu_suspicious
trie_lookup_elem
bpf_prog_..._enforce_security_socket_connect
bpf_trampoline_...
security_socket_connect
__sys_connect
do_syscall_64
This is lockdep-only -- no UAF, since Tasks Trace RCU does serialize
against the trie's reclaim path -- but it spams the console once per
distinct callsite on every debug kernel running a sleepable BPF LSM
that touches an LPM trie, which is increasingly common.
For the lookup path, switch the rcu_dereference_check() annotation
from rcu_read_lock_bh_held() to bpf_rcu_lock_held(), which accepts all
three contexts (classic, BH, Tasks Trace). Other map types already
follow this convention.
For trie_update_elem() and trie_delete_elem(), annotate the walks as
rcu_dereference_protected(*p, 1) -- matching trie_free() in the same
file -- since trie->lock is held across the walk. rqspinlock has no
lockdep_map, so the predicate degenerates to '1' rather than
lockdep_is_held(&trie->lock); the protection is real but not
machine-verifiable. trie_get_next_key() also uses bare
rcu_dereference() but is reachable only from the BPF syscall, which
holds classic rcu_read_lock() before dispatching, so it is left
untouched.
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
- 0.1% 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