In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
net: qrtr: Drop the MHI auto_queue feature for IPCR DL channels
MHI stack offers the 'auto_queue' feature, which allows the MHI stack to
auto queue the buffers for the RX path (DL channel). Though this feature
simplifies the client driver design, it introduces race between the client
drivers and the MHI stack. For instance, with auto_queue, the 'dl_callback'
for the DL channel may get called before the client driver is fully probed.
This means, by the time the dl_callback gets called, the client driver's
structures might not be initialized, leading to NULL ptr dereference.
Currently, the drivers have to workaround this issue by initializing the
internal structures before calling mhi_prepare_for_transfer_autoqueue().
But even so, there is a chance that the client driver's internal code path
may call the MHI queue APIs before mhi_prepare_for_transfer_autoqueue() is
called, leading to similar NULL ptr dereference. This issue has been
reported on the Qcom X1E80100 CRD machines affecting boot.
So to properly fix all these races, drop the MHI 'auto_queue' feature
altogether and let the client driver (QRTR) manage the RX buffers manually.
In the QRTR driver, queue the RX buffers based on the ring length during
probe and recycle the buffers in 'dl_callback' once they are consumed. This
also warrants removing the setting of 'auto_queue' flag from controller
drivers.
Currently, this 'auto_queue' feature is only enabled for IPCR DL channel.
So only the QRTR client driver requires the modification.
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 2026-10-29). 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
- 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: 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.
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