In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ALSA: pcm: Serialize PCM mmap with buffer reallocation to fix page UAF
snd_pcm_hw_params() and snd_pcm_hw_free() guard buffer reallocation
with an mmap_count check performed under the PCM stream lock, but the
lock is released long before the buffer is actually freed:
snd_pcm_sync_stop(), constraint refinement and do_free_pages() all
happen in between. snd_pcm_mmap_data(), on the other hand, takes no
lock at all: it validates against the old buffer's state and
dma_bytes, remaps its pages into the VMA, and only then increments
mmap_count.
A concurrent mmap() can therefore slip in between the check and the
free. remap_pfn_range() installs writable PTEs for the old buffer's
pages without taking page references, and the subsequent
do_free_pages() returns those pages to the page allocator while the
VMA still maps them. This leaves a stale, writable mapping of freed
pages: a page-level use-after-free that can be leveraged for local
privilege escalation.
Make snd_pcm_mmap_data() participate in the buffer-access scheme
introduced for hw_params/hw_free: acquire runtime->buffer_accessing
before validating and remapping, and release it afterwards. Buffer
reallocation already fails with -EBUSY while accessors are active,
and the mmap side now fails with -EBUSY while a reallocation is in
progress, so the validate/remap sequence and the check/free sequence
can no longer interleave.
A reproducer that turns this race into a stale writable mapping of
the freed DMA buffer pages is available on request.
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