In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
USB: dummy-hcd: Fix interrupt synchronization error
This fixes an error in synchronization in the dummy-hcd driver. The
error has a somewhat involved history. The synchronization mechanism
was introduced by commit 7dbd8f4cabd9 ("USB: dummy-hcd: Fix erroneous
synchronization change"), which added an emulated "interrupts enabled"
flag together with code emulating synchronize_irq() (it waits until
all current handler callbacks have returned).
But the emulated interrupt-disable occurred too late, after the driver
containing the handler callback routines had been told that it was
unbound and no more callbacks would occur. Commit 4a5d797a9f9c ("usb:
gadget: dummy_hcd: fix gpf in gadget_setup") tried to fix this by
moving the synchronize_irq() emulation code from dummy_stop() to
dummy_pullup(), which runs before the unbind callback.
There still were races, though, because the emulated interrupt-disable
still occurred too late. It couldn't be moved to dummy_pullup(),
because that routine can be called for reasons other than an impending
unbind. Therefore commits 7dc0c55e9f30 ("USB: UDC core: Add
udc_async_callbacks gadget op") and 04145a03db9d ("USB: UDC: Implement
udc_async_callbacks in dummy-hcd") added an API allowing the UDC core
to tell dummy-hcd exactly when emulated interrupts and their callbacks
should be disabled.
That brings us to the current state of things, which is still wrong
because the emulated synchronize_irq() occurs before the emulated
interrupt-disable! That's no good, beause it means that more emulated
interrupts can occur after the synchronize_irq() emulation has run,
leading to the possibility that a callback handler may be running when
the gadget driver is unbound.
To fix this, we have to move the synchronize_irq() emulation code yet
again, to the dummy_udc_async_callbacks() routine, which takes care of
enabling and disabling emulated interrupt requests. The
synchronization will now run immediately after emulated interrupts are
disabled, which is where it belongs.
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
- 0.1% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-31). 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, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: 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.
The score's inputs: 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