In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
wifi: mac80211: Fix static_branch_dec() underflow for aql_disable.
syzbot reported static_branch_dec() underflow in aql_enable_write(). [0]
The problem is that aql_enable_write() does not serialise concurrent
write()s to the debugfs.
aql_enable_write() checks static_key_false(&aql_disable.key) and
later calls static_branch_inc() or static_branch_dec(), but the
state may change between the two calls.
aql_disable does not need to track inc/dec.
Let's use static_branch_enable() and static_branch_disable().
[0]:
val == 0
WARNING: kernel/jump_label.c:311 at __static_key_slow_dec_cpuslocked.part.0+0x107/0x120 kernel/jump_label.c:311, CPU#0: syz.1.3155/20288
Modules linked in:
CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 20288 Comm: syz.1.3155 Tainted: G U L syzkaller #0 PREEMPT(full)
Tainted: [U]=USER, [L]=SOFTLOCKUP
Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS Google 01/24/2026
RIP: 0010:__static_key_slow_dec_cpuslocked.part.0+0x107/0x120 kernel/jump_label.c:311
Code: f2 c9 ff 5b 5d c3 cc cc cc cc e8 54 f2 c9 ff 48 89 df e8 ac f9 ff ff eb ad e8 45 f2 c9 ff 90 0f 0b 90 eb a2 e8 3a f2 c9 ff 90 <0f> 0b 90 eb 97 48 89 df e8 5c 4b 33 00 e9 36 ff ff ff 0f 1f 80 00
RSP: 0018:ffffc9000b9f7c10 EFLAGS: 00010293
RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: ffffffff9b3e5d40 RCX: ffffffff823c57b4
RDX: ffff8880285a0000 RSI: ffffffff823c5846 RDI: ffff8880285a0000
RBP: 0000000000000000 R08: 0000000000000005 R09: 0000000000000000
R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000000 R12: 000000000000000a
R13: 1ffff9200173ef88 R14: 0000000000000001 R15: ffffc9000b9f7e98
FS: 00007f530dd726c0(0000) GS:ffff8881245e3000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
CR2: 0000200000001140 CR3: 000000007cc4a000 CR4: 00000000003526f0
Call Trace:
__static_key_slow_dec_cpuslocked kernel/jump_label.c:297 [inline]
__static_key_slow_dec kernel/jump_label.c:321 [inline]
static_key_slow_dec+0x7c/0xc0 kernel/jump_label.c:336
aql_enable_write+0x2b2/0x310 net/mac80211/debugfs.c:343
short_proxy_write+0x133/0x1a0 fs/debugfs/file.c:383
vfs_write+0x2aa/0x1070 fs/read_write.c:684
ksys_pwrite64 fs/read_write.c:793 [inline]
__do_sys_pwrite64 fs/read_write.c:801 [inline]
__se_sys_pwrite64 fs/read_write.c:798 [inline]
__x64_sys_pwrite64+0x1eb/0x250 fs/read_write.c:798
do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:63 [inline]
do_syscall_64+0xc9/0xf80 arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:94
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x77/0x7f
RIP: 0033:0x7f530cf9aeb9
Code: ff c3 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 00 00 0f 1f 44 00 00 48 89 f8 48 89 f7 48 89 d6 48 89 ca 4d 89 c2 4d 89 c8 4c 8b 4c 24 08 0f 05 <48> 3d 01 f0 ff ff 73 01 c3 48 c7 c1 e8 ff ff ff f7 d8 64 89 01 48
RSP: 002b:00007f530dd72028 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000012
RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 00007f530d215fa0 RCX: 00007f530cf9aeb9
RDX: 0000000000000003 RSI: 0000000000000000 RDI: 0000000000000010
RBP: 00007f530d008c1f R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000000000000
R10: 4200000000000005 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 0000000000000000
R13: 00007f530d216038 R14: 00007f530d215fa0 R15: 00007ffde89fb978
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. 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