In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
rcu: Protect ->defer_qs_iw_pending from data race
On kernels built with CONFIG_IRQ_WORK=y, when rcu_read_unlock() is
invoked within an interrupts-disabled region of code [1], it will invoke
rcu_read_unlock_special(), which uses an irq-work handler to force the
system to notice when the RCU read-side critical section actually ends.
That end won't happen until interrupts are enabled at the soonest.
In some kernels, such as those booted with rcutree.use_softirq=y, the
irq-work handler is used unconditionally.
The per-CPU rcu_data structure's ->defer_qs_iw_pending field is
updated by the irq-work handler and is both read and updated by
rcu_read_unlock_special(). This resulted in the following KCSAN splat:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUG: KCSAN: data-race in rcu_preempt_deferred_qs_handler / rcu_read_unlock_special
read to 0xffff96b95f42d8d8 of 1 bytes by task 90 on cpu 8:
rcu_read_unlock_special+0x175/0x260
__rcu_read_unlock+0x92/0xa0
rt_spin_unlock+0x9b/0xc0
__local_bh_enable+0x10d/0x170
__local_bh_enable_ip+0xfb/0x150
rcu_do_batch+0x595/0xc40
rcu_cpu_kthread+0x4e9/0x830
smpboot_thread_fn+0x24d/0x3b0
kthread+0x3bd/0x410
ret_from_fork+0x35/0x40
ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30
write to 0xffff96b95f42d8d8 of 1 bytes by task 88 on cpu 8:
rcu_preempt_deferred_qs_handler+0x1e/0x30
irq_work_single+0xaf/0x160
run_irq_workd+0x91/0xc0
smpboot_thread_fn+0x24d/0x3b0
kthread+0x3bd/0x410
ret_from_fork+0x35/0x40
ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30
no locks held by irq_work/8/88.
irq event stamp: 200272
hardirqs last enabled at (200272): [] finish_task_switch+0x131/0x320
hardirqs last disabled at (200271): [] __schedule+0x129/0xd70
softirqs last enabled at (0): [] copy_process+0x4df/0x1cc0
softirqs last disabled at (0): [<0000000000000000>] 0x0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem is that irq-work handlers run with interrupts enabled, which
means that rcu_preempt_deferred_qs_handler() could be interrupted,
and that interrupt handler might contain an RCU read-side critical
section, which might invoke rcu_read_unlock_special(). In the strict
KCSAN mode of operation used by RCU, this constitutes a data race on
the ->defer_qs_iw_pending field.
This commit therefore disables interrupts across the portion of the
rcu_preempt_deferred_qs_handler() that updates the ->defer_qs_iw_pending
field. This suffices because this handler is not a fast path.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.0): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.0 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.0 HIGHCVSS-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 2026-11-02). 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