In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
regulator: core: regulator_lock_two() should test for EDEADLK not EDEADLOCK
Compare against -EDEADLK, which is what ww_mutex_lock() actually
returns and what every other deadlock check in this file already uses.
Function regulator_lock_two() acquires two regulators via
regulator_lock_nested() -> ww_mutex_lock(). On contention,
ww_mutex_lock() returns -EDEADLK, which is the caller's signal to drop
the lock it holds and retry the acquisition in the canonical order.
However, regulator_lock_two() tests the return value against -EDEADLOCK
rather than -EDEADLK. On most architectures, EDEADLK and EDEADLOCK are
the same value, so the comparison happens to be correct and the bug is
invisible. But on MIPS, SPARC, and PowerPC, those two errors have
different values. The test is wrong: a genuine -EDEADLK backoff no
longer matches -EDEADLOCK, so instead of unlocking and retrying, the
code falls into WARN_ON(ret) and returns with only one of the two
regulators locked.
In practice, this is a bug only on MIPS, because the regulator core is
not built or used on the other two platforms.
In general, EDEADLK is preferred over EDEADLOCK for new code.
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
- 0.2% 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 (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