In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
driver core: Fix wait_for_device_probe() & deferred_probe_timeout interaction
Mounting NFS rootfs was timing out when deferred_probe_timeout was
non-zero [1]. This was because ip_auto_config() initcall times out
waiting for the network interfaces to show up when
deferred_probe_timeout was non-zero. While ip_auto_config() calls
wait_for_device_probe() to make sure any currently running deferred
probe work or asynchronous probe finishes, that wasn't sufficient to
account for devices being deferred until deferred_probe_timeout.
Commit 35a672363ab3 ("driver core: Ensure wait_for_device_probe() waits
until the deferred_probe_timeout fires") tried to fix that by making
sure wait_for_device_probe() waits for deferred_probe_timeout to expire
before returning.
However, if wait_for_device_probe() is called from the kernel_init()
context:
- Before deferred_probe_initcall() [2], it causes the boot process to
hang due to a deadlock.
- After deferred_probe_initcall() [3], it blocks kernel_init() from
continuing till deferred_probe_timeout expires and beats the point of
deferred_probe_timeout that's trying to wait for userspace to load
modules.
Neither of this is good. So revert the changes to
wait_for_device_probe().
[1] - https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/TYAPR01MB45443DF63B9EF29054F7C41FD8C60@TYAPR01MB4544.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com/
[2] - https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/YowHNo4sBjr9ijZr@dev-arch.thelio-3990X/
[3] - https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/Yo3WvGnNk3LvLb7R@linutronix.de/
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