In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
scsi: ufs: ufs-qcom: Fix UFS OCP issue during UFS power down (PC=3)
According to UFS specifications, the power-off sequence for a UFS device
includes:
- Sending an SSU command with Power_Condition=3 and await a response.
- Asserting RST_N low.
- Turning off REF_CLK.
- Turning off VCC.
- Turning off VCCQ/VCCQ2.
As part of ufs shutdown, after the SSU command completion, asserting
hardware reset (HWRST) triggers the device firmware to wake up and
execute its reset routine. This routine initializes hardware blocks and
takes a few milliseconds to complete. During this time, the ICCQ draws a
large current.
This large ICCQ current may cause issues for the regulator which is
supplying power to UFS, because the turn off request from UFS driver to
the regulator framework will be immediately followed by low power
mode(LPM) request by regulator framework. This is done by framework
because UFS which is the only client is requesting for disable. So if
the rail is still in the process of shutting down while ICCQ exceeds LPM
current thresholds, and LPM mode is activated in hardware during this
state, it may trigger an overcurrent protection (OCP) fault in the
regulator.
To prevent this, a 10ms delay is added after asserting HWRST. This
allows the reset operation to complete while power rails remain active
and in high-power mode.
Currently there is no way for Host to query whether the reset is
completed or not and hence this the delay is based on experiments with
Qualcomm UFS controllers across multiple UFS vendors.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
- EG Severity
- Not assessed: no CVSS publishedA missing CVSS is not a severity of zero.
- EG Likelihood
- 0.2% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-29). 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
- No SSVC decision: EchelonGraph has not assessed this CVECISA 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 BOD 26-04 block below.
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