In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
mtd: fix double free and WARN_ON in add_mtd_device() error paths
When device_register() or mtd_nvmem_add() fails inside
add_mtd_device() for a partition, the error handling triggers
mtd_release() via put_device() or device_unregister(). mtd_release()
calls release_mtd_partition() which frees the mtd_info structure.
However, callers such as mtd_add_partition() and add_mtd_partitions()
also call free_partition() in their error paths, resulting in a double
free.
Additionally, release_mtd_partition() hits WARN_ON(!list_empty(
&mtd->part.node)) because the partition node is still linked in the
parent's partitions list when the release callback fires from the
add_mtd_device() error path.
Fix this by overriding dev->type and dev->release before put_device()
in the error paths, so that device_release() invokes a no-op function
instead of mtd_release(). For the mtd_nvmem_add() failure case,
device_unregister() is replaced with device_del() to separate the
device removal from the final kobject reference drop, allowing the
override to take effect before put_device() is called.
The callers' error paths (list_del + free_partition) remain the sole
owners of mtd_info lifetime on add_mtd_device() failure, which is the
expected contract.
The normal partition teardown path is not affected: del_mtd_device()
goes through kref_put() -> mtd_device_release() -> device_unregister()
with dev->type still set to &mtd_devtype, so mtd_release() ->
release_mtd_partition() continues to work correctly for the regular
removal case.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
- EG Severity
- Not assessed: no CVSS publishedA missing CVSS is not a severity of zero.
- 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
- No SSVC decision: EchelonGraph has not assessed this CVECISA 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 BOD 26-04 block below.
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