In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
fuse-uring: end fuse_req on io-uring cancel task work
When io_uring delivers task work with tw.cancel set (PF_EXITING,
PF_KTHREAD fallback, or percpu_ref_is_dying on the ring context),
fuse_uring_send_in_task() takes the cancel branch, assigns
-ECANCELED, and falls through to fuse_uring_send(). That path only
flips the entry to FRRS_USERSPACE and completes the io_uring cmd;
it never discharges the ring entry's owning reference to the
fuse_req that fuse_uring_add_req_to_ring_ent() handed it at
dispatch time.
fuse_uring_send_in_task()
tw.cancel == true
err = -ECANCELED
fuse_uring_send(ent, cmd, err, issue_flags)
ent->state = FRRS_USERSPACE
list_move(&ent->list, &queue->ent_in_userspace)
ent->cmd = NULL
io_uring_cmd_done(-ECANCELED)
/* ent->fuse_req still set, req still hashed */
The fuse_req stays linked on fpq->processing[hash] and
fuse_request_end() is never invoked. The originating syscall
thread blocks in D-state in request_wait_answer() until
fuse_abort_conn() runs, which can be the entire connection
lifetime. For FR_BACKGROUND requests fc->num_background is never
decremented either, so repeated cancels inflate the counter until
max_background is hit and all later background ops stall. tw.cancel does
not imply a connection abort (e.g. a single io_uring worker thread exits
while the fuse connection stays up), so this cannot be left for
fuse_abort_conn() to clean up.
Ending the req but still routing the entry through fuse_uring_send()
is not enough: that leaves a req-less entry on ent_in_userspace, and
ent_list_request_expired() dereferences ent->fuse_req unconditionally
on the head of that list, which would then NULL-deref.
Fix the cancel branch to release the entry directly. Remove it from the
queue, complete the io_uring cmd, end the fuse_req, free the entry, and
drop its queue_refs (waking the teardown waiter if it was the last).
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.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.2% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS. 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