In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
drbd: fix "LOGIC BUG" in drbd_al_begin_io_nonblock()
Even though we check that we "should" be able to do lc_get_cumulative()
while holding the device->al_lock spinlock, it may still fail,
if some other code path decided to do lc_try_lock() with bad timing.
If that happened, we logged "LOGIC BUG for enr=...",
but still did not return an error.
The rest of the code now assumed that this request has references
for the relevant activity log extents.
The implcations are that during an active resync, mutual exclusivity of
resync versus application IO is not guaranteed. And a potential crash
at this point may not realizs that these extents could have been target
of in-flight IO and would need to be resynced just in case.
Also, once the request completes, it will give up activity log references it
does not even hold, which will trigger a BUG_ON(refcnt == 0) in lc_put().
Fix:
Do not crash the kernel for a condition that is harmless during normal
operation: also catch "e->refcnt == 0", not only "e == NULL"
when being noisy about "al_complete_io() called on inactive extent %u\n".
And do not try to be smart and "guess" whether something will work, then
be surprised when it does not.
Deal with the fact that it may or may not work. If it does not, remember a
possible "partially in activity log" state (only possible for requests that
cross extent boundaries), and return an error code from
drbd_al_begin_io_nonblock().
A latter call for the same request will then resume from where we left off.
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
- 0.1% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-17). 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