In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
PCI/PM: Drain runtime-idle callbacks before driver removal
A race condition between the .runtime_idle() callback and the .remove()
callback in the rtsx_pcr PCI driver leads to a kernel crash due to an
unhandled page fault [1].
The problem is that rtsx_pci_runtime_idle() is not expected to be running
after pm_runtime_get_sync() has been called, but the latter doesn't really
guarantee that. It only guarantees that the suspend and resume callbacks
will not be running when it returns.
However, if a .runtime_idle() callback is already running when
pm_runtime_get_sync() is called, the latter will notice that the runtime PM
status of the device is RPM_ACTIVE and it will return right away without
waiting for the former to complete. In fact, it cannot wait for
.runtime_idle() to complete because it may be called from that callback (it
arguably does not make much sense to do that, but it is not strictly
prohibited).
Thus in general, whoever is providing a .runtime_idle() callback needs
to protect it from running in parallel with whatever code runs after
pm_runtime_get_sync(). [Note that .runtime_idle() will not start after
pm_runtime_get_sync() has returned, but it may continue running then if it
has started earlier.]
One way to address that race condition is to call pm_runtime_barrier()
after pm_runtime_get_sync() (not before it, because a nonzero value of the
runtime PM usage counter is necessary to prevent runtime PM callbacks from
being invoked) to wait for the .runtime_idle() callback to complete should
it be running at that point. A suitable place for doing that is in
pci_device_remove() which calls pm_runtime_get_sync() before removing the
driver, so it may as well call pm_runtime_barrier() subsequently, which
will prevent the race in question from occurring, not just in the rtsx_pcr
driver, but in any PCI drivers providing .runtime_idle() callbacks.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (5.5): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 5.5 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 5.5 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