In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
rbd: eliminate a race in lock_dwork draining on unmap
Given how rbd_lock_add_request() and rbd_img_exclusive_lock() are
written, lock_dwork may be (re)queued more than it's actually needed:
for example in case a new I/O request comes in while we are in the
middle of rbd_acquire_lock() on behalf of another I/O request. This is
expected and with rbd_release_lock() preemptively canceling lock_dwork
is benign under normal operation.
A more problematic example is maybe_kick_acquire():
if (have_requests || delayed_work_pending(&rbd_dev->lock_dwork)) {
dout("%s rbd_dev %p kicking lock_dwork\n", __func__, rbd_dev);
mod_delayed_work(rbd_dev->task_wq, &rbd_dev->lock_dwork, 0);
}
It's not unrealistic for lock_dwork to get canceled right after
delayed_work_pending() returns true and for mod_delayed_work() to
requeue it right there anyway. This is a classic TOCTOU race.
When it comes to unmapping the image, there is an implicit assumption
of no self-initiated exclusive lock activity past the point of return
from rbd_dev_image_unlock() which unlocks the lock if it happens to be
held. This unlock is assumed to be final and lock_dwork (as well as
all other exclusive lock tasks, really) isn't expected to get queued
again. However, lock_dwork is canceled only in cancel_tasks_sync()
(i.e. later in the unmap sequence) and on top of that the cancellation
can get in effect nullified by maybe_kick_acquire(). This may result
in rbd_acquire_lock() executing after rbd_dev_device_release() and
rbd_dev_image_release() run and free and/or reset a bunch of things.
One of the possible failure modes then is a violated
rbd_assert(rbd_image_format_valid(rbd_dev->image_format));
in rbd_dev_header_info() which is called via rbd_dev_refresh() from
rbd_post_acquire_action().
Redo exclusive lock task draining to provide saner semantics and try
to meet the assumptions around rbd_dev_image_unlock().
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 2026-10-27). 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 (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (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 Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (CISA Vulnrichment). 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