In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
PCI: dwc: ep: Flush MSI-X write before unmapping its ATU entry
Endpoint drivers use dw_pcie_ep_raise_msix_irq() to raise an MSI-X
interrupt to the host using a writel(), which generates a PCI posted write
transaction. There's no completion for posted writes, so the writel() may
return before the PCI write completes. dw_pcie_ep_raise_msix_irq() also
unmaps the outbound ATU entry used for the PCI write, so the write races
with the unmap.
If the PCI write loses the race with the ATU unmap, the write may corrupt
host memory or cause IOMMU errors, e.g., these when running fio with a
larger queue depth against nvmet-pci-epf:
arm-smmu-v3 fc900000.iommu: 0x0000010000000010
arm-smmu-v3 fc900000.iommu: 0x0000020000000000
arm-smmu-v3 fc900000.iommu: 0x000000090000f040
arm-smmu-v3 fc900000.iommu: 0x0000000000000000
arm-smmu-v3 fc900000.iommu: event: F_TRANSLATION client: 0000:01:00.0 sid: 0x100 ssid: 0x0 iova: 0x90000f040 ipa: 0x0
arm-smmu-v3 fc900000.iommu: unpriv data write s1 "Input address caused fault" stag: 0x0
Flush the write by performing a readl() of the same address to ensure that
the write has reached the destination before the ATU entry is unmapped.
The same problem was solved for dw_pcie_ep_raise_msi_irq() in commit
8719c64e76bf ("PCI: dwc: ep: Cache MSI outbound iATU mapping"), but there
it was solved by dedicating an outbound iATU only for MSI. We can't do the
same for MSI-X because each vector can have a different msg_addr and the
msg_addr may be changed while the vector is masked.
[bhelgaas: commit log]
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.8 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 2026-10-29). 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