In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ubi: fastmap: Fix duplicate slab cache names while attaching
Since commit 4c39529663b9 ("slab: Warn on duplicate cache names when
DEBUG_VM=y"), the duplicate slab cache names can be detected and a
kernel WARNING is thrown out.
In UBI fast attaching process, alloc_ai() could be invoked twice
with the same slab cache name 'ubi_aeb_slab_cache', which will trigger
following warning messages:
kmem_cache of name 'ubi_aeb_slab_cache' already exists
WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 7519 at mm/slab_common.c:107
__kmem_cache_create_args+0x100/0x5f0
Modules linked in: ubi(+) nandsim [last unloaded: nandsim]
CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 7519 Comm: modprobe Tainted: G 6.12.0-rc2
RIP: 0010:__kmem_cache_create_args+0x100/0x5f0
Call Trace:
__kmem_cache_create_args+0x100/0x5f0
alloc_ai+0x295/0x3f0 [ubi]
ubi_attach+0x3c3/0xcc0 [ubi]
ubi_attach_mtd_dev+0x17cf/0x3fa0 [ubi]
ubi_init+0x3fb/0x800 [ubi]
do_init_module+0x265/0x7d0
__x64_sys_finit_module+0x7a/0xc0
The problem could be easily reproduced by loading UBI device by fastmap
with CONFIG_DEBUG_VM=y.
Fix it by using different slab names for alloc_ai() callers.
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 2026-11-05). 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, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: 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.
The score's inputs: 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