CVE-2025-71102scs: fix a wrong parameter in __scs_magic
Updated under an hour ago ()
Does this affect you?
It affects Linux and 1 other product. Add what you run to find out whether that includes you.
No exploitation reported and no EPSS estimate yet.
Do this next
Free account, 1 product
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: scs: fix a wrong parameter in __scs_magic __scs_magic() needs a 'void *' variable, but a 'struct task_struct *' is given. 'task_scs(tsk)' is the starting address of the task's shadow call stack, and '__scs_magic(task_scs(tsk))' is the end address of the task's shadow call stack. Here should be '__scs_magic(task_scs(tsk))'. The user-visible effect of this bug is that when CONFIG_DEBUG_STACK_USAGE is enabled, the shadow call stack usage checking function (scs_check_usage) would scan an incorrect memory range. This could lead 1. **Inaccurate stack usage reporting**: The function would calculate wrong usage statistics for the shadow call stack, potentially showing incorrect value in kmsg. 2. **Potential kernel crash**: If the value of __scs_magic(tsk)is greater than that of __scs_magic(task_scs(tsk)), the for loop may access unmapped memory, potentially causing a kernel panic. However, this scenario is unlikely because task_struct is allocated via the slab allocator (which typically returns lower addresses), while the shadow call stack returned by task_scs(tsk) is allocated via vmalloc(which typically returns higher addresses). However, since this is purely a debugging feature (CONFIG_DEBUG_STACK_USAGE), normal production systems should be not unaffected. The bug only impacts developers and testers who are actively debugging stack usage with this configuration enabled.
- CVSS
- 5.5 MEDIUM (v3.1, NVD)CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
- Weakness (CWE)
- Not given
- Known exploited
- Not in CISA's KEV catalog
- EPSS (exploitation in the next 30 days)
- Not loaded for this CVE
- Assigned by
- Linux
- NVD analysis
- Analyzed
- Record last updated
- May 11, 2026
- First seen by InfoSec Signals
- Oct 9, 2026
The CVE record on cve.org NVD's entry
The CVE record is authoritative. Products marked “from the name” were identified from the CNA's free-text names, not a CPE, and are matched less certainly. This product uses the NVD API but is not endorsed or certified by the NVD.