In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
bfq: Avoid merging queues with different parents
It can happen that the parent of a bfqq changes between the moment we
decide two queues are worth to merge (and set bic->stable_merge_bfqq)
and the moment bfq_setup_merge() is called. This can happen e.g. because
the process submitted IO for a different cgroup and thus bfqq got
reparented. It can even happen that the bfqq we are merging with has
parent cgroup that is already offline and going to be destroyed in which
case the merge can lead to use-after-free issues such as:
BUG: KASAN: use-after-free in __bfq_deactivate_entity+0x9cb/0xa50
Read of size 8 at addr ffff88800693c0c0 by task runc:[2:INIT]/10544
CPU: 0 PID: 10544 Comm: runc:[2:INIT] Tainted: G E 5.15.2-0.g5fb85fd-default #1 openSUSE Tumbleweed (unreleased) f1f3b891c72369aebecd2e43e4641a6358867c70
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS rel-1.14.0-0-g155821a-rebuilt.opensuse.org 04/01/2014
Call Trace:
dump_stack_lvl+0x46/0x5a
print_address_description.constprop.0+0x1f/0x140
? __bfq_deactivate_entity+0x9cb/0xa50
kasan_report.cold+0x7f/0x11b
? __bfq_deactivate_entity+0x9cb/0xa50
__bfq_deactivate_entity+0x9cb/0xa50
? update_curr+0x32f/0x5d0
bfq_deactivate_entity+0xa0/0x1d0
bfq_del_bfqq_busy+0x28a/0x420
? resched_curr+0x116/0x1d0
? bfq_requeue_bfqq+0x70/0x70
? check_preempt_wakeup+0x52b/0xbc0
__bfq_bfqq_expire+0x1a2/0x270
bfq_bfqq_expire+0xd16/0x2160
? try_to_wake_up+0x4ee/0x1260
? bfq_end_wr_async_queues+0xe0/0xe0
? _raw_write_unlock_bh+0x60/0x60
? _raw_spin_lock_irq+0x81/0xe0
bfq_idle_slice_timer+0x109/0x280
? bfq_dispatch_request+0x4870/0x4870
__hrtimer_run_queues+0x37d/0x700
? enqueue_hrtimer+0x1b0/0x1b0
? kvm_clock_get_cycles+0xd/0x10
? ktime_get_update_offsets_now+0x6f/0x280
hrtimer_interrupt+0x2c8/0x740
Fix the problem by checking that the parent of the two bfqqs we are
merging in bfq_setup_merge() is the same.
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 (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (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)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 Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (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