In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
scsi: core: Wake up the error handler when final completions race against each other
The fragile ordering between marking commands completed or failed so
that the error handler only wakes when the last running command
completes or times out has race conditions. These race conditions can
cause the SCSI layer to fail to wake the error handler, leaving I/O
through the SCSI host stuck as the error state cannot advance.
First, there is an memory ordering issue within scsi_dec_host_busy().
The write which clears SCMD_STATE_INFLIGHT may be reordered with reads
counting in scsi_host_busy(). While the local CPU will see its own
write, reordering can allow other CPUs in scsi_dec_host_busy() or
scsi_eh_inc_host_failed() to see a raised busy count, causing no CPU to
see a host busy equal to the host_failed count.
This race condition can be prevented with a memory barrier on the error
path to force the write to be visible before counting host busy
commands.
Second, there is a general ordering issue with scsi_eh_inc_host_failed(). By
counting busy commands before incrementing host_failed, it can race with a
final command in scsi_dec_host_busy(), such that scsi_dec_host_busy() does
not see host_failed incremented but scsi_eh_inc_host_failed() counts busy
commands before SCMD_STATE_INFLIGHT is cleared by scsi_dec_host_busy(),
resulting in neither waking the error handler task.
This needs the call to scsi_host_busy() to be moved after host_failed is
incremented to close the race condition.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (4.7): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 4.7 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 4.7 MEDIUMCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.1% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-24). 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: 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.
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