In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
net/smc: initialize close_work early to avoid warning
We encountered a warning that close_work was canceled before
initialization.
WARNING: CPU: 7 PID: 111103 at kernel/workqueue.c:3047 __flush_work+0x19e/0x1b0
Workqueue: events smc_lgr_terminate_work [smc]
RIP: 0010:__flush_work+0x19e/0x1b0
Call Trace:
? __wake_up_common+0x7a/0x190
? work_busy+0x80/0x80
__cancel_work_timer+0xe3/0x160
smc_close_cancel_work+0x1a/0x70 [smc]
smc_close_active_abort+0x207/0x360 [smc]
__smc_lgr_terminate.part.38+0xc8/0x180 [smc]
process_one_work+0x19e/0x340
worker_thread+0x30/0x370
? process_one_work+0x340/0x340
kthread+0x117/0x130
? __kthread_cancel_work+0x50/0x50
ret_from_fork+0x22/0x30
This is because when smc_close_cancel_work is triggered, e.g. the RDMA
driver is rmmod and the LGR is terminated, the conn->close_work is
flushed before initialization, resulting in WARN_ON(!work->func).
__smc_lgr_terminate | smc_connect_{rdma|ism}
-------------------------------------------------------------
| smc_conn_create
| \- smc_lgr_register_conn
for conn in lgr->conns_all |
\- smc_conn_kill |
\- smc_close_active_abort |
\- smc_close_cancel_work |
\- cancel_work_sync |
\- __flush_work |
(close_work) |
| smc_close_init
| \- INIT_WORK(&close_work)
So fix this by initializing close_work before establishing the
connection.
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
- 0.5% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-11-07). 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; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days 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; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable yes (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)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days if it is not.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable yes (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