In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ALSA: pcm: Fix potential AB/BA lock with buffer_mutex and mmap_lock
syzbot caught a potential deadlock between the PCM
runtime->buffer_mutex and the mm->mmap_lock. It was brought by the
recent fix to cover the racy read/write and other ioctls, and in that
commit, I overlooked a (hopefully only) corner case that may take the
revert lock, namely, the OSS mmap. The OSS mmap operation
exceptionally allows to re-configure the parameters inside the OSS
mmap syscall, where mm->mmap_mutex is already held. Meanwhile, the
copy_from/to_user calls at read/write operations also take the
mm->mmap_lock internally, hence it may lead to a AB/BA deadlock.
A similar problem was already seen in the past and we fixed it with a
refcount (in commit b248371628aa). The former fix covered only the
call paths with OSS read/write and OSS ioctls, while we need to cover
the concurrent access via both ALSA and OSS APIs now.
This patch addresses the problem above by replacing the buffer_mutex
lock in the read/write operations with a refcount similar as we've
used for OSS. The new field, runtime->buffer_accessing, keeps the
number of concurrent read/write operations. Unlike the former
buffer_mutex protection, this protects only around the
copy_from/to_user() calls; the other codes are basically protected by
the PCM stream lock. The refcount can be a negative, meaning blocked
by the ioctls. If a negative value is seen, the read/write aborts
with -EBUSY. In the ioctl side, OTOH, they check this refcount, too,
and set to a negative value for blocking unless it's already being
accessed.
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 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