In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
bpf: Fix REG INVARIANTS VIOLATION on speculative pointer arithmetic
Take the following unprivileged program as an example:
r0 = bpf_map_lookup_elem(...) /* PTR_TO_MAP_VALUE, offset 0 */
...
14: r0 += r1 /* r1 is a bounded scalar */
15: r9 = r0
Loading it triggers a verifier warning from reg_bounds_sanity_check():
verifier bug: REG INVARIANTS VIOLATION (alu): const subreg tnum out
of sync with range bounds r64={.base=0x0, .size=0x0}
r32={.base=0x0, .size=0xffffffff} var_off=(0x0, 0x0)
What happens:
- Processing insn 14 (r0 += r1) in adjust_ptr_min_max_vals(), the new
offset is computed into dst_reg's var_off and 32/64-bit ranges.
- Because pointer registers do not track 32-bit subregister bounds,
__mark_reg32_unbounded() first sets r32 to the full range; r32 is
re-derived from the offset at the end of the function by
reg_bounds_sync().
- On the unprivileged path, sanitize_ptr_alu() is called and, via
sanitize_speculative_path() -> push_stack(), snapshots the current
register state and schedules the next instruction (insn 15) to be
verified directly as a speculative path.
- That snapshot is taken between step 2 and the final reg_bounds_sync():
at this point dst_reg's var_off still holds the (const) original
offset while r32 has just been blanked to the full range, i.e. the two
are out of sync. When the speculative path later verifies insn 15
(r9 = r0), the inconsistent state reaches reg_bounds_sanity_check() and
trips the warning.
var_off and the 32-bit range must always be consistent. There are two
ways to keep the snapshot consistent:
- sync var_off and r32 before the snapshot so they match, or
- leave r32 at its original (already consistent) value and blank it
only after the snapshot.
The whole point of sanitize_ptr_alu() is to insert a harmless masking
sequence that keeps the access in bounds under speculation, so the state
it snapshots should faithfully represent that. Take approach 2: move
__mark_reg32_unbounded() to after sanitize_ptr_alu(), so the speculative
snapshot keeps the pointer's original, consistent r32. The non-speculative
path is unchanged: r32 is still blanked before the offset is applied and
re-derived by reg_bounds_sync().
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (5.5): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 5.5 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 5.5 MEDIUMCVSS-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 2026-10-24). 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