In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
KVM: guest_memfd: Treat memslot binding offset+size as unsigned values
When binding a memslot to a guest_memfd file, treat the offset and size as
unsigned values to fix a bug where the sum of the two can result in a false
negative when checking for overflow against the size of the file. Passing
unsigned values also avoids relying on somewhat obscure checks in other
flows for safety, and tracks the offset and size as they are intended to be
tracked, as unsigned values.
On 64-bit kernels, the number of pages a memslot contains and thus the size
(and offset) of its guest_memfd binding are unsigned 64-bit values. Taking
the offset+size as an loff_t instead of a uoff_t inadvertently converts
the unsigned value to a signed value if the offset and/or size is massive.
Locally storing the offset and size as signed values is benign in and of
itself (though even that is *extremely* difficult to discern), but
operating on their sum is not.
For the offset, KVM explicitly checks against a negative value, which might
seem like a bug as KVM could incorrectly reject a legitimate binding, but
that's not actually the case as KVM_CREATE_GUEST_MEMFD takes a signed value
for its size, i.e. a would-be-negative offset is also greater than the
maximum possible size of any guest_memfd file.
Regarding the size, while KVM lacks an explicit check for a negative value,
i.e. seemingly has a flawed overflow check, KVM restricts the number of
pages in a single memslot to the largest positive signed 32-bit value:
if (id < KVM_USER_MEM_SLOTS &&
(mem->memory_size >> PAGE_SHIFT) > KVM_MEM_MAX_NR_PAGES)
return -EINVAL;
and so that maximum "size" will ever be is 0x7fffffff000.
The sum of the two is, however, problematic. While the size is restricted
by KVM's memslot logic, the offset is not, i.e. the offset is completely
unchecked until the "offset + size > i_size_read(inode)" check. If the
offset is the (nearly) largest possible _positive_ value, then adding size
to the offset can result in a signed, negative 64-bit value. When compared
against the size of the file (guaranteed to be positive), the negative sum
is always smaller, and KVM incorrectly allows the absurd offset.
Opportunistically add missing includes in kvm_mm.h (instead of relying on
its parents).
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.0): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.0 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.0 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 2026-11-06). 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 every mission impact level.CISA BOD 26-04: 60 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 every mission impact level.
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (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)60 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 Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). 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