In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
gpiolib: fix memory leak in gpiochip_setup_dev()
Here is a backtrace report about memory leak detected in
gpiochip_setup_dev():
unreferenced object 0xffff88810b406400 (size 512):
comm "python3", pid 1682, jiffies 4295346908 (age 24.090s)
backtrace:
kmalloc_trace
device_add device_private_init at drivers/base/core.c:3361
(inlined by) device_add at drivers/base/core.c:3411
cdev_device_add
gpiolib_cdev_register
gpiochip_setup_dev
gpiochip_add_data_with_key
gcdev_register() & gcdev_unregister() would call device_add() &
device_del() (no matter CONFIG_GPIO_CDEV is enabled or not) to
register/unregister device.
However, if device_add() succeeds, some resource (like
struct device_private allocated by device_private_init())
is not released by device_del().
Therefore, after device_add() succeeds by gcdev_register(), it
needs to call put_device() to release resource in the error handle
path.
Here we move forward the register of release function, and let it
release every piece of resource by put_device() instead of kfree().
While at it, fix another subtle issue, i.e. when gc->ngpio is equal
to 0, we still call kcalloc() and, in case of further error, kfree()
on the ZERO_PTR pointer, which is not NULL. It's not a bug per se,
but rather waste of the resources and potentially wrong expectation
about contents of the gdev->descs variable.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (5.5): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 5.5 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 5.5 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