In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
usb: gadget: dummy_hcd: prevent fifo_req reuse during giveback
dummy_hcd embeds a single shared usb_request (dum->fifo_req) that the
"emulated single-request FIFO" fast-path in dummy_queue() reuses for
small IN transfers: it copies the caller's request into it
(req->req = *_req) and queues it, treating list_empty(&fifo_req.queue)
as "the slot is free".
The completion side (dummy_timer/transfer/nuke/dummy_dequeue) follows
the standard pattern: list_del_init(&req->queue) unlinks the request,
then the lock is dropped and usb_gadget_giveback_request() invokes
req->complete(). But list_del_init() makes fifo_req.queue look empty
*before* the completion callback returns, so a concurrent dummy_queue()
on another CPU sees the slot as free, reuses fifo_req and runs
req->req = *_req -- overwriting req->complete while dummy_timer is
mid-calling it. The indirect call then jumps to a clobbered pointer,
causing a general protection fault / page fault in dummy_timer
(syzkaller extid faf3a6cf579fc65591ca). The clobbering write is an
in-bounds memcpy on a live shared object, so KASAN cannot flag it.
Add a fifo_req_busy bit covering the shared request's whole lifetime:
set it in dummy_queue() when the FIFO fast-path takes fifo_req (making
it the fast-path guard, replacing the list_empty(&fifo_req.queue)
test), and clear it after the completion callback has returned, via a
dummy_giveback() helper used at all four gadget-request giveback
sites. The shared slot can no longer be reused until its completion
callback has finished.
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