In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ice: fix concurrent reset and removal of VFs
Commit c503e63200c6 ("ice: Stop processing VF messages during teardown")
introduced a driver state flag, ICE_VF_DEINIT_IN_PROGRESS, which is
intended to prevent some issues with concurrently handling messages from
VFs while tearing down the VFs.
This change was motivated by crashes caused while tearing down and
bringing up VFs in rapid succession.
It turns out that the fix actually introduces issues with the VF driver
caused because the PF no longer responds to any messages sent by the VF
during its .remove routine. This results in the VF potentially removing
its DMA memory before the PF has shut down the device queues.
Additionally, the fix doesn't actually resolve concurrency issues within
the ice driver. It is possible for a VF to initiate a reset just prior
to the ice driver removing VFs. This can result in the remove task
concurrently operating while the VF is being reset. This results in
similar memory corruption and panics purportedly fixed by that commit.
Fix this concurrency at its root by protecting both the reset and
removal flows using the existing VF cfg_lock. This ensures that we
cannot remove the VF while any outstanding critical tasks such as a
virtchnl message or a reset are occurring.
This locking change also fixes the root cause originally fixed by commit
c503e63200c6 ("ice: Stop processing VF messages during teardown"), so we
can simply revert it.
Note that I kept these two changes together because simply reverting the
original commit alone would leave the driver vulnerable to worse race
conditions.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (4.7): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 4.7 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 4.7 MEDIUMCVSS-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 2026-10-25). 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 every mission impact level.CISA BOD 26-04: 60 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.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 every mission impact level.
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (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)60 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (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