In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
mm: shrinker: fix shrinker_info teardown race with expansion
expand_shrinker_info() iterates all visible memcgs under shrinker_mutex,
including memcgs that have not finished ->css_online() yet.
Once pn->shrinker_info has been published, teardown must stay serialized
with expand_shrinker_info() until that memcg is either fully online or no
longer visible to iteration. Today alloc_shrinker_info() breaks that rule
by dropping shrinker_mutex before freeing a partially initialized
shrinker_info array, which may cause the following race:
CPU0 CPU1
==== ====
css_create
--> list_add_tail_rcu(&css->sibling, &parent_css->children);
online_css
--> mem_cgroup_css_online
--> alloc_shrinker_info
--> alloc node0 info
rcu_assign_pointer(C->node0->shrinker_info, old0)
alloc node1 info -> FAIL -> goto err
mutex_unlock(shrinker_mutex)
shrinker_alloc()
--> shrinker_memcg_alloc
--> mutex_lock(shrinker_mutex)
expand_shrinker_info
--> mem_cgroup_iter see the memcg
expand_one_shrinker_info
--> old0 = C->node0->shrinker_info
memcpy(new->unit, old0->unit, ...);
free_shrinker_info
--> kvfree(old0);
/* double free !! */
kvfree_rcu(old0, rcu);
The same problem exists later in mem_cgroup_css_online(). If
alloc_shrinker_info() succeeds but a subsequent objcg allocation fails,
the free_objcg -> free_shrinker_info() unwind path tears down the already
published pn->shrinker_info arrays without shrinker_mutex. The
expand_one_shrinker_info() can race with that teardown in the same way,
leading to use-after-free or double-free of the old shrinker_info.
Fix this by serializing shrinker_info teardown with shrinker_mutex, and by
keeping alloc_shrinker_info() error cleanup inside the locked section.
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 2026-10-19). 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