In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
bridge: Fix sleep in atomic context in sysfs path
Since the start of the git history, brport_store() always acquired the
bridge lock. Back then this decision made sense: The bridge lock
protects the STP state of the bridge and its ports and at that time the
function was only used by two STP related attributes (cost and
priority).
Nowadays, brport_store() processes a lot more attributes and most of
them do not need the bridge lock:
* Bridge flags: Only require RTNL. Read locklessly by the data path.
Annotations can be added in net-next.
* FDB port flushing: Only requires the FDB lock.
* Multicast attributes: Only require the multicast lock.
* Group forward mask: Only requires RTNL. Read locklessly by the data
path. Annotations can be added in net-next.
* Backup port: Only requires RTNL. Read locklessly by the data path.
This is a problem as the bridge calls dev_set_promiscuity() when certain
bridge port flags change and this function can sleep since the commit
cited below, resulting in a splat such as [1].
Fix this by reducing the scope of the bridge lock and only take it when
processing the two STP related attributes that require it. Remove the
now stale comment from br_switchdev_set_port_flag(). The
SWITCHDEV_F_DEFER flag can be removed in net-next.
[1]
BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at net/core/dev_addr_lists.c:1262
in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 0, non_block: 0, pid: 372, name: bash
preempt_count: 201, expected: 0
RCU nest depth: 0, expected: 0
5 locks held by bash/372:
#0: ffff88810c51c3f0 (sb_writers#7){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: ksys_write (fs/read_write.c:740)
#1: ffff888115ce9480 (&of->mutex){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: kernfs_fop_write_iter (fs/kernfs/file.c:343)
#2: ffff88810b9fd330 (kn->active#37){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: kernfs_fop_write_iter (fs/kernfs/file.c:80 fs/kernfs/file.c:344)
#3: ffffffffa59473a0 (rtnl_mutex){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: brport_store (net/bridge/br_sysfs_if.c:326)
#4: ffff8881099d2d58 (&br->lock){+...}-{3:3}, at: brport_store (./include/linux/spinlock.h:348 net/bridge/br_sysfs_if.c:345)
Preemption disabled at:
0x0
Hardware name: Bochs Bochs, BIOS Bochs 01/01/2011
Call Trace:
dump_stack_lvl (lib/dump_stack.c:94 lib/dump_stack.c:120)
__might_resched.cold (kernel/sched/core.c:9163)
netif_rx_mode_run (net/core/dev_addr_lists.c:1262)
netif_rx_mode_sync (net/core/dev_addr_lists.c:1428)
dev_set_promiscuity (net/core/dev_api.c:289)
br_manage_promisc (net/bridge/br_if.c:135 net/bridge/br_if.c:172)
br_port_flags_change (net/bridge/br_if.c:242 net/bridge/br_if.c:747)
store_learning (net/bridge/br_sysfs_if.c:79 net/bridge/br_sysfs_if.c:235)
brport_store (net/bridge/br_sysfs_if.c:346)
kernfs_fop_write_iter (fs/kernfs/file.c:352)
new_sync_write (fs/read_write.c:595)
vfs_write (fs/read_write.c:688)
ksys_write (fs/read_write.c:740)
do_syscall_64 (arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:63 arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:94)
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe (arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:121)
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.NVD CVSS v3 · CVSS v3.0 or v3.1
- 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