In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
usb: musb: Fix hardware lockup on first Rx endpoint request
There is a possibility that a request's callback could be invoked from
usb_ep_queue() (call trace below, supplemented with missing calls):
req->complete from usb_gadget_giveback_request
(drivers/usb/gadget/udc/core.c:999)
usb_gadget_giveback_request from musb_g_giveback
(drivers/usb/musb/musb_gadget.c:147)
musb_g_giveback from rxstate
(drivers/usb/musb/musb_gadget.c:784)
rxstate from musb_ep_restart
(drivers/usb/musb/musb_gadget.c:1169)
musb_ep_restart from musb_ep_restart_resume_work
(drivers/usb/musb/musb_gadget.c:1176)
musb_ep_restart_resume_work from musb_queue_resume_work
(drivers/usb/musb/musb_core.c:2279)
musb_queue_resume_work from musb_gadget_queue
(drivers/usb/musb/musb_gadget.c:1241)
musb_gadget_queue from usb_ep_queue
(drivers/usb/gadget/udc/core.c:300)
According to the docstring of usb_ep_queue(), this should not happen:
"Note that @req's ->complete() callback must never be called from within
usb_ep_queue() as that can create deadlock situations."
In fact, a hardware lockup might occur in the following sequence:
- The gadget is initialized using musb_gadget_enable().
- Meanwhile, a packet arrives, and the RXPKTRDY flag is set, raising an
interrupt.
- If IRQs are enabled, the interrupt is handled, but musb_g_rx() finds an
empty queue (next_request() returns NULL). The interrupt flag has
already been cleared by the glue layer handler, but the RXPKTRDY flag
remains set.
- The first request is enqueued using usb_ep_queue(), leading to the call
of req->complete(), as shown in the call trace above.
- If the callback enables IRQs and another packet is waiting, step (3)
repeats. The request queue is empty because usb_g_giveback() removes the
request before invoking the callback.
- The endpoint remains locked up, as the interrupt triggered by hardware
setting the RXPKTRDY flag has been handled, but the flag itself remains
set.
For this scenario to occur, it is only necessary for IRQs to be enabled at
some point during the complete callback. This happens with the USB Ethernet
gadget, whose rx_complete() callback calls netif_rx(). If called in the
task context, netif_rx() disables the bottom halves (BHs). When the BHs are
re-enabled, IRQs are also enabled to allow soft IRQs to be processed. The
gadget itself is initialized at module load (or at boot if built-in), but
the first request is enqueued when the network interface is brought up,
triggering rx_complete() in the task context via ioctl(). If a packet
arrives while the interface is down, it can prevent the interface from
receiving any further packets from the USB host.
The situation is quite complicated with many parties involved. This
particular issue can be resolved in several possible ways:
- Ensure that callbacks never enable IRQs. This would be difficult to
enforce, as discovering how netif_rx() interacts with interrupts was
already quite challenging and u_ether is not the only function driver.
Similar "bugs" could be hidden in other drivers as well.
- Disable MUSB interrupts in musb_g_giveback() before calling the callback
and re-enable them afterwars (by calling musb_{dis,en}able_interrupts(),
for example). This would ensure that MUSB interrupts are not handled
during the callback, even if IRQs are enabled. In fact, it would allow
IRQs to be enabled when releasing the lock. However, this feels like an
inelegant hack.
- Modify the interrupt handler to clear the RXPKTRDY flag if the request
queue is empty. While this approach also feels like a hack, it wastes
CPU time by attempting to handle incoming packets when the software is
not ready to process them.
- Flush the Rx FIFO instead of calling rxstate() in musb_ep_restart().
This ensures that the hardware can receive packets when there is at
least one request in the queue. Once I
---truncated---
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 2026-10-25). 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