In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
usb: gadget: udc: bdc: free IRQ and drain func_wake_notify before teardown
The Broadcom BDC UDC driver registers its IRQ handler with
devm_request_irq() in bdc_udc_init(), so the IRQ is released by devm
only after bdc_remove() returns. devm releases resources in reverse
LIFO order, but bdc_remove() runs bdc_udc_exit() and bdc_hw_exit() ->
bdc_mem_free() manually before returning: bdc_udc_exit() tears down
individual endpoint objects via bdc_free_ep(), while bdc_hw_exit() ->
bdc_mem_free() frees and NULLs the DMA-coherent status-report ring
(bdc->srr.sr_bds) and kfree()s bdc->bdc_ep_array. Both happen while
the IRQ handler (bdc_udc_interrupt, requested with IRQF_SHARED)
remains deliverable in the window up to the post-remove devm
free_irq().
On receipt of a shared interrupt in that window, bdc_udc_interrupt()
dereferences bdc->srr.sr_bds[bdc->srr.dqp_index] (NULL or freed DMA)
and dispatches sr_handler callbacks that index into bdc_ep_array,
causing a NULL-deref or use-after-free.
The same window affects the delayed_work bdc->func_wake_notify, which is
armed from the IRQ handler via bdc_sr_uspc() -> handle_link_state_change()
-> schedule_delayed_work() and may self-rearm from its own callback
bdc_func_wake_timer(). No cancel exists anywhere in the driver, so a
queued work item that fires after bdc_remove() returns and the bdc
structure is devm-freed dereferences freed memory.
Replace devm_request_irq() with request_irq() and add an explicit
free_irq(bdc->irq, bdc) in bdc_remove(). Clear BDC_GIE before
free_irq() to stop the device from asserting interrupts, then
free_irq() drains any in-flight handler, then cancel_delayed_work_sync()
drains the func_wake_notify delayed work. This ordering ensures the
IRQ handler and delayed work cannot interfere with the subsequent
endpoint and DMA teardown in bdc_udc_exit() and bdc_hw_exit(). Wire the
matching free_irq() into the bdc_udc_init() error path so the IRQ is
released on probe failure, and route the bdc_init_ep() failure through
err0 instead of returning directly.
This issue was found by an in-house static analysis tool.
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 2026-10-17). 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