In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
tty: tty_buffer: Fix the softlockup issue in flush_to_ldisc
When running ltp testcase(ltp/testcases/kernel/pty/pty04.c) with arm64, there is a soft lockup,
which look like this one:
Workqueue: events_unbound flush_to_ldisc
Call trace:
dump_backtrace+0x0/0x1ec
show_stack+0x24/0x30
dump_stack+0xd0/0x128
panic+0x15c/0x374
watchdog_timer_fn+0x2b8/0x304
__run_hrtimer+0x88/0x2c0
__hrtimer_run_queues+0xa4/0x120
hrtimer_interrupt+0xfc/0x270
arch_timer_handler_phys+0x40/0x50
handle_percpu_devid_irq+0x94/0x220
__handle_domain_irq+0x88/0xf0
gic_handle_irq+0x84/0xfc
el1_irq+0xc8/0x180
slip_unesc+0x80/0x214 [slip]
tty_ldisc_receive_buf+0x64/0x80
tty_port_default_receive_buf+0x50/0x90
flush_to_ldisc+0xbc/0x110
process_one_work+0x1d4/0x4b0
worker_thread+0x180/0x430
kthread+0x11c/0x120
In the testcase pty04, The first process call the write syscall to send
data to the pty master. At the same time, the workqueue will do the
flush_to_ldisc to pop data in a loop until there is no more data left.
When the sender and workqueue running in different core, the sender sends
data fastly in full time which will result in workqueue doing work in loop
for a long time and occuring softlockup in flush_to_ldisc with kernel
configured without preempt. So I add need_resched check and cond_resched
in the flush_to_ldisc loop to avoid it.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (4.4): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 4.4 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 4.4 MEDIUMCVSS-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 2026-10-17). 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: 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.
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