In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ublk: wait on ublk_dev_ready() instead of ub->completion
ub->completion is only re-armed by a successful START_USER_RECOVERY. If
the ublk server sends END_USER_RECOVERY without one - e.g. its START
failed with -EBUSY and the error was ignored - the wait is satisfied by
the stale completion of the previous recovery cycle, and the device is
marked LIVE and the requeue list kicked while the FETCH stream is still
running and ubq->canceling is still set. The kick redispatches a
previously requeued request, __ublk_queue_rq_common() sees ->canceling
and parks it again via __ublk_abort_rq(), and after the last FETCH
clears ->canceling nothing ever kicks the requeue list again: the
request is stranded there while holding its tag. If it is the flush
machinery's flush_rq, every subsequent fsync piles up in uninterruptible
sleep and teardown hangs on tag draining. This matches a report of a
lost PREFLUSH with ext4 on top of ublk after daemon crash recovery.
ub->completion is an edge-triggered latch used as a proxy for the level
condition "every queue has fetched all I/O commands", which can regress
(F_BATCH's UNPREP, daemon death) and whose re-arm can be skipped. Drop
it and wait on the real condition instead: the new helper
ublk_wait_dev_ready_and_lock() waits on ublk_dev_ready() via
wait_var_event_interruptible(), woken from ublk_mark_io_ready(), then
re-checks it under ub->mutex, waiting again on regression, and returns
with the mutex held and readiness guaranteed.
Readiness becomes true in the same ub->mutex critical section that
clears the last queue's ->canceling, so END_USER_RECOVERY marks the
device LIVE and kicks the requeue list strictly after ->canceling
clears. The wait stays interruptible, so a server whose daemon died can
still be signalled out. For ublk_ctrl_start_dev() this replaces the
fail-fast -EINVAL on an F_BATCH ready->UNPREP regression with waiting
until the device is ready again.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.1): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.1 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.1 HIGHCVSS-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 (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