In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
nvmet-rdma: handle inline data with a nonzero offset
nvmet_rdma_use_inline_sg() maps the host-controlled inline data offset
into the per-command inline scatterlist. The bounds check admits any
offset with off + len <= inline_data_size, but the mapping still assumes
the data begins in the first inline page:
sg->offset = off;
sg->length = min_t(int, len, PAGE_SIZE - off);
When a port is configured with inline_data_size > PAGE_SIZE (settable up
to max(SZ_16K, PAGE_SIZE)), an offset in (PAGE_SIZE, inline_data_size]
makes "PAGE_SIZE - off" underflow, so sg->length is set to ~4 GiB and
the block backend reads far past the first inline page. num_pages(len)
also ignores the offset, so an in-bounds offset whose [off, off+len)
span crosses a page boundary under-counts the scatterlist.
Map the offset properly: split it into a page index and an in-page
offset, start the scatterlist at that page, and size the page count from
page_off + len. Because the request scatterlist may now start at
inline_sg[page_idx] rather than inline_sg[0], generalize the inline-SGL
identity test in nvmet_rdma_release_rsp() to a range test; otherwise the
persistent inline scatterlist is mistaken for an allocated one and
nvmet_req_free_sgls() frees an inline page (and warns in
free_large_kmalloc()).
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (9.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 9.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 9.8 CRITICALCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.7% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-11-12). 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; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 3 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days 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; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (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)3 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days if it is not.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (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