In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
perf: Fix use-after-free when perf mmap() revival races with the last munmap()
perf_mmap_close() drops rb->mmap_count *without* holding
event->mmap_mutex (the refcount_dec_and_test() right before the
refcount_dec_and_mutex_lock() of event->mmap_count). A concurrent
perf_mmap_rb() can slot its entire "revival" path into that window
(perf_mmap holds event->mmap_mutex for its whole duration, including
rb_alloc):
munmap side (perf_mmap_close) mmap side (perf_mmap_rb)
----------------------------------- --------------------------------
rb->mmap_count 1 -> 0 (no lock) (holds event->mmap_mutex)
inc_not_zero(rb->mmap_count) fails
ring_buffer_attach(event, NULL)
rb_alloc() + attach new rb
refcount_set(&event->mmap_count, 1)
lock; event->mmap_count 1 -> 0
ring_buffer_attach(event, NULL)
ring_buffer_put() -> frees the *new* rb
The revival's refcount_set(&event->mmap_count, 1) is an invisible
1 -> 1 write: the close frees the just-revived buffer although the
other process still has it mapped -- a page-level use-after-free
allowing local privilege escalation to root by any unprivileged user
(default kernel.perf_event_paranoid=2).
Swap the order of the two counter updates: event->mmap_count is
dropped first via refcount_dec_and_mutex_lock(), so its 1 -> 0
transition and the ring_buffer_attach() stay serialized with
perf_mmap(). rb->mmap_count == 0 then implies every event using the
buffer is detached already, so the result of the rb->mmap_count drop
can gate the remaining teardown directly and detach_rest is no longer
needed.
An earlier fix for this race from Kyle Zeng and David Lee takes
event->mmap_mutex around both counter updates [0]; here the not-last
close stays lockless.
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