EchelonGraph verdictPlan mitigationNo fix is confirmed yet: check the vendor's advisory for a fixed release; until one is applied, restrict network exposure of the affected system or apply the vendor's mitigation on your normal schedule (the SSVC decision on this page).
- •High severity, but no confirmed exploitation yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0.1%CVSS: 7.8Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed
No fix is confirmed yet — apply a workaround or compensating control (WAF / firewall / segmentation) and watch for the fix.
The CVE record's CNA (kernel.org) lists Linux versions 6.12.113 up to but not including 6.12.115 and 6.18.52 up to but not including 6.18.60 as affected, and Linux versions before 6.19 and 7.4-rc1 and later as unaffected. No release containing a fix is confirmed on record.
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
io_uring/waitid: own the request before clearing ->head
io_waitid_remove_wq() only takes the wait queue lock if ->head is set.
io_waitid_wait() clears ->head first thing, before it tries to become the
owner of the request by bumping ->refs. If somebody else owns the request
at that point, nothing keeps it from completing the request while the
wake up handler is still going to touch it:
CPU0 (io_waitid_wait) CPU1 (io_waitid, holds a ref)
list_del_init(&wait->entry)
smp_store_release(&iw->head, NULL)
__do_wait() finds another child
io_waitid_remove_wq()
// ->head == NULL, no locking
io_waitid_finish(), IOU_COMPLETE
// request freed and reused
atomic_fetch_inc(&iw->refs)
The same goes for __io_waitid_cancel() if it claims the request in that
window. ->refs is part of the per opcode data of the request, so this
increments whatever the next user of the request keeps there. If that
happens to be zero, the handler concludes that it owns the request, and
queues io_waitid_cb() for it. With the window held open by a delay, and
the request reused for a receive that is waiting for data:
BUG: KASAN: slab-use-after-free in __wake_up_common+0x1ca/0x1f0
__wake_up_sync_key+0x36/0x50
sock_def_readable+0xf1/0x420
unix_stream_sendmsg+0x60b/0x1110
Allocated by task 87:
io_arm_apoll+0x1ed/0x940
Freed by task 87:
__io_submit_flush_completions+0x118d/0x1a10
tctx_task_work_run+0x327/0x950
Only clear ->head once the handler owns the request. If it doesn't, the
owner finds ->head set and has to wait for the lock, which is held by the
caller of the handler. Deleting the already deleted entry again is
harmless.
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 2026-11-03). 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.No released fix is confirmed on this page, but CISA's timeline does not wait for a fix's release: it starts when an agency identifies the flaw on an asset and updates the CDM Agency and Federal Dashboard, and the directive counts patching, decommissioning the system or another action as remediation. Until a fixed release is applied, mitigate as this page's verdict says. In the directive's words, “Fix on system upgrade” means that, “unless conditions change”, the vulnerability “should be remediated the next time the vulnerable asset receives a scheduled major upgrade or rebuild”: its timelines are “dynamic as facts change”, and a KEV listing shortens them.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: 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).
No fix is confirmed yet. Check the vendor's advisory for a fixed release; until one is applied, restrict network exposure of the affected system or apply the vendor's mitigation on your normal schedule.
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.
No released fix is confirmed on this page, but CISA's timeline does not wait for a fix's release: it starts when an agency identifies the flaw on an asset and updates the CDM Agency and Federal Dashboard, and the directive counts patching, decommissioning the system or another action as remediation. Until a fixed release is applied, mitigate as this page's verdict says. In the directive's words, “Fix on system upgrade” means that, “unless conditions change”, the vulnerability “should be remediated the next time the vulnerable asset receives a scheduled major upgrade or rebuild”: its timelines are “dynamic as facts change”, and a KEV listing shortens them.
The score's inputs: 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