In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
mm: zswap: fix crypto_free_acomp() deadlock in zswap_cpu_comp_dead()
Currently, zswap_cpu_comp_dead() calls crypto_free_acomp() while holding
the per-CPU acomp_ctx mutex. crypto_free_acomp() then holds scomp_lock
(through crypto_exit_scomp_ops_async()).
On the other hand, crypto_alloc_acomp_node() holds the scomp_lock (through
crypto_scomp_init_tfm()), and then allocates memory. If the allocation
results in reclaim, we may attempt to hold the per-CPU acomp_ctx mutex.
The above dependencies can cause an ABBA deadlock. For example in the
following scenario:
(1) Task A running on CPU #1:
crypto_alloc_acomp_node()
Holds scomp_lock
Enters reclaim
Reads per_cpu_ptr(pool->acomp_ctx, 1)
(2) Task A is descheduled
(3) CPU #1 goes offline
zswap_cpu_comp_dead(CPU #1)
Holds per_cpu_ptr(pool->acomp_ctx, 1))
Calls crypto_free_acomp()
Waits for scomp_lock
(4) Task A running on CPU #2:
Waits for per_cpu_ptr(pool->acomp_ctx, 1) // Read on CPU #1
DEADLOCK
Since there is no requirement to call crypto_free_acomp() with the per-CPU
acomp_ctx mutex held in zswap_cpu_comp_dead(), move it after the mutex is
unlocked. Also move the acomp_request_free() and kfree() calls for
consistency and to avoid any potential sublte locking dependencies in the
future.
With this, only setting acomp_ctx fields to NULL occurs with the mutex
held. This is similar to how zswap_cpu_comp_prepare() only initializes
acomp_ctx fields with the mutex held, after performing all allocations
before holding the mutex.
Opportunistically, move the NULL check on acomp_ctx so that it takes place
before the mutex dereference.
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 low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 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 low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from 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; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). Where an input reads “CISA's BOD 26-04 default”, no one has published it for this CVE, and CISA's implementation guidance says: “If “Automatable” and “Technical Impact” information items about a CVE ID are not available and the CVE ID is not in the KEV Catalog, CISA will treat its values as “no” and “total,” respectively, until CISA or a third party provides metadata about the CVE ID. CISA will always provide the Vulnrichment data for a CVE ID listed in the KEV Catalog.” 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