In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
drm/xe/guc: Hold device ref until queue teardown completes
GuC exec queue destruction can run asynchronously. If the final device
put happens from a destroy worker, drmm cleanup can end up draining
the same workqueue and deadlock.
Hold a drm_device reference for the queue lifetime and drop it after
queue teardown completes. This keeps drmm cleanup from running while
async destroy work is still pending.
Move GuC destroy work to a module-lifetime Xe workqueue and flush it
on PCI remove so hot-unbind/rebind still waits for pending destroy work.
With queue-held device refs, guc_submit_sw_fini() cannot run with live
GuC IDs. Replace the fini wait with an assertion and remove the unused
fini_wq.
v2:
v3:
- Switch to queue-lifetime drm_dev_get()/drm_dev_put() model. (Matt)
- Queue async teardown on system_dfl_wq instead of xe->destroy_wq. (Matt)
- Drop separate deferred drm_dev_put worker.
- Remove stale drain_workqueue(xe->destroy_wq) from guc_submit_sw_fini().
v4:
- Replace the guc_submit_sw_fini() wait with an assertion and remove
the now-unused fini_wq. (sashiko)
v5:
- Move destroy work to a module-lifetime Xe workqueue instead of
system_dfl_wq. (Matt)
- Flush the module-lifetime destroy workqueue during PCI remove to
preserve the old device-remove wait semantics.
v6:
- Keep SVM pagemap destroy work on the per-device destroy_wq to avoid
letting it outlive the xe_device/drm_device. (Sashiko)
- Use WQ_MEM_RECLAIM for xe->destroy_wq because SVM pagemap destroy work
can be queued from the reclaim path.
v7:
- Drop the per-device xe->destroy_wq and use the module-level destroy WQ
for SVM pagemap destroy as well. (Matt)
- Rename xe_exec_queue_destroy_wq_*() helpers to xe_destroy_wq_*()
helpers because the WQ is no longer exec-queue specific. (Matt)
v8:
v9:
- Keep SVM pagemap destroy work on the per-device WQ_MEM_RECLAIM
destroy_wq because it can be queued from reclaim and embeds
the dev_pagemap used by devres teardown. (Sashiko)
- Keep the module-level destroy WQ GuC-only and drop WQ_MEM_RECLAIM
from it.
- Update the module-WQ kdoc to document the GuC/SVM split.
v10:
- Keep xe->destroy_wq per-cpu while adding WQ_MEM_RECLAIM to fix the
workqueue allocation warning.
v11:
- Drop the SVM pagemap destroy comment as it was revision-specific.
(Thomas)
v12:
(cherry picked from commit da1124abac689cc2b1d8995e5f0a816f8a122edb)
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 (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (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 Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (CISA Vulnrichment). 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