In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
KVM: nVMX: Service local TLB flushes on failed nested VM-Enter
KVM services local TLB flushes on "full" nested VM-Exits (through
__nested_vmx_vmexit()), but not if a nested VM-Enter fails (e.g. due to
failed VMCS checks in nested_vmx_enter_non_root_mode()).
However, it is possible that KVM had queued TLB flushes that need to be
performed, even if the nested VM-Enter was not successful. For example,
if VPID is disabled for L2 (via nested_vmx_transition_tlb_flush(), or if
via the MSR load lists, as the SDM says:
If any MSR is being loaded in such a way that would architecturally
require a TLB flush, the TLBs are updated so that, after VM entry, the
logical processor will not use any translations that were cached before
the transition.
The SDM is unclear about when the TLB flush should occur, and whether or
not a failed VM entry would flush the TLB, so it is safer to always
do the TLB flush in this case.
More concretely, KVM also updates the last VPID L1 used for L2 in
nested_vmx_transition_tlb_flush() (i.e. last_vpid), even if the VM entry
ultimately fails. With the current code, KVM could miss a TLB flush if
L1 changes L2's VPID, then does a failed VM entry followed by a
successful one, as the failed VM entry would update last_vpid but not
actually flush the TLB. Servicing local TLB flushes on failed VM entries
makes sure that the TLB is always flushed when last_vpid is updated.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (9.3): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 9.3 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 9.3 CRITICALCVSS-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 2026-11-12). 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; 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