In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ata: sata_dwc_460ex: Fix crash due to OOB write
the driver uses libata's "tag" values from in various arrays.
Since the mentioned patch bumped the ATA_TAG_INTERNAL to 32,
the value of the SATA_DWC_QCMD_MAX needs to account for that.
Otherwise ATA_TAG_INTERNAL usage cause similar crashes like
this as reported by Tice Rex on the OpenWrt Forum and
reproduced (with symbols) here:
| BUG: Kernel NULL pointer dereference at 0x00000000
| Faulting instruction address: 0xc03ed4b8
| Oops: Kernel access of bad area, sig: 11 [#1]
| BE PAGE_SIZE=4K PowerPC 44x Platform
| CPU: 0 PID: 362 Comm: scsi_eh_1 Not tainted 5.4.163 #0
| NIP: c03ed4b8 LR: c03d27e8 CTR: c03ed36c
| REGS: cfa59950 TRAP: 0300 Not tainted (5.4.163)
| MSR: 00021000 CR: 42000222 XER: 00000000
| DEAR: 00000000 ESR: 00000000
| GPR00: c03d27e8 cfa59a08 cfa55fe0 00000000 0fa46bc0 [...]
| [..]
| NIP [c03ed4b8] sata_dwc_qc_issue+0x14c/0x254
| LR [c03d27e8] ata_qc_issue+0x1c8/0x2dc
| Call Trace:
| [cfa59a08] [c003f4e0] __cancel_work_timer+0x124/0x194 (unreliable)
| [cfa59a78] [c03d27e8] ata_qc_issue+0x1c8/0x2dc
| [cfa59a98] [c03d2b3c] ata_exec_internal_sg+0x240/0x524
| [cfa59b08] [c03d2e98] ata_exec_internal+0x78/0xe0
| [cfa59b58] [c03d30fc] ata_read_log_page.part.38+0x1dc/0x204
| [cfa59bc8] [c03d324c] ata_identify_page_supported+0x68/0x130
| [...]
This is because sata_dwc_dma_xfer_complete() NULLs the
dma_pending's next neighbour "chan" (a *dma_chan struct) in
this '32' case right here (line ~735):
> hsdevp->dma_pending[tag] = SATA_DWC_DMA_PENDING_NONE;
Then the next time, a dma gets issued; dma_dwc_xfer_setup() passes
the NULL'd hsdevp->chan to the dmaengine_slave_config() which then
causes the crash.
With this patch, SATA_DWC_QCMD_MAX is now set to ATA_MAX_QUEUE + 1.
This avoids the OOB. But please note, there was a worthwhile discussion
on what ATA_TAG_INTERNAL and ATA_MAX_QUEUE is. And why there should not
be a "fake" 33 command-long queue size.
Ideally, the dw driver should account for the ATA_TAG_INTERNAL.
In Damien Le Moal's words: "... having looked at the driver, it
is a bigger change than just faking a 33rd "tag" that is in fact
not a command tag at all."
BugLink: https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/issues/9505
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
- 0.3% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-28). 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, 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).
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
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.
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