In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
io-wq: check that the predecessor is hashed in io_wq_remove_pending()
io_wq_remove_pending() needs to fix up wq->hash_tail[] if the cancelled
work was the tail of its hash bucket. When doing this, it checks whether
the preceding entry in acct->work_list has the same hash value, but
never checks that the predecessor is hashed at all. io_get_work_hash()
is simply atomic_read(&work->flags) >> IO_WQ_HASH_SHIFT, and the hash
bits are never set for non-hashed work, so it returns 0. Thus, when a
hashed bucket-0 work is cancelled while a non-hashed work is its list
predecessor, the check spuriously passes and a pointer to the non-hashed
io_kiocb is stored in wq->hash_tail[0].
Because non-hashed work is dequeued via the fast path in
io_get_next_work(), which never touches hash_tail[], the stale pointer
is never cleared. Therefore, after the non-hashed io_kiocb completes and
is freed back to req_cachep, wq->hash_tail[0] is a dangling pointer. The
io_wq is per-task (tctx->io_wq) and survives ring open/close, so the
dangling pointer persists for the lifetime of the task; the next hashed
bucket-0 enqueue dereferences it in io_wq_insert_work() and
wq_list_add_after() writes through freed memory.
Add the missing io_wq_is_hashed() check so a non-hashed predecessor
never inherits a hash_tail[] slot.
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 2026-10-29). 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