In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
hwrng: core - use RCU and work_struct to fix race condition
Currently, hwrng_fill is not cleared until the hwrng_fillfn() thread
exits. Since hwrng_unregister() reads hwrng_fill outside the rng_mutex
lock, a concurrent hwrng_unregister() may call kthread_stop() again on
the same task.
Additionally, if hwrng_unregister() is called immediately after
hwrng_register(), the stopped thread may have never been executed. Thus,
hwrng_fill remains dirty even after hwrng_unregister() returns. In this
case, subsequent calls to hwrng_register() will fail to start new
threads, and hwrng_unregister() will call kthread_stop() on the same
freed task. In both cases, a use-after-free occurs:
refcount_t: addition on 0; use-after-free.
WARNING: ... at lib/refcount.c:25 refcount_warn_saturate+0xec/0x1c0
Call Trace:
kthread_stop+0x181/0x360
hwrng_unregister+0x288/0x380
virtrng_remove+0xe3/0x200
This patch fixes the race by protecting the global hwrng_fill pointer
inside the rng_mutex lock, so that hwrng_fillfn() thread is stopped only
once, and calls to kthread_run() and kthread_stop() are serialized
with the lock held.
To avoid deadlock in hwrng_fillfn() while being stopped with the lock
held, we convert current_rng to RCU, so that get_current_rng() can read
current_rng without holding the lock. To remove the lock from put_rng(),
we also delay the actual cleanup into a work_struct.
Since get_current_rng() no longer returns ERR_PTR values, the IS_ERR()
checks are removed from its callers.
With hwrng_fill protected by the rng_mutex lock, hwrng_fillfn() can no
longer clear hwrng_fill itself. Therefore, if hwrng_fillfn() returns
directly after current_rng is dropped, kthread_stop() would be called on
a freed task_struct later. To fix this, hwrng_fillfn() calls schedule()
now to keep the task alive until being stopped. The kthread_stop() call
is also moved from hwrng_unregister() to drop_current_rng(), ensuring
kthread_stop() is called on all possible paths where current_rng becomes
NULL, so that the thread would not wait forever.
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 2026-10-17). 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