In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ata: libata-transport: fix double ata_host_put() in ata_tport_add()
In the error path in ata_tport_add(), when calling put_device(),
ata_tport_release() is called, it will put the refcount of 'ap->host'.
And then ata_host_put() is called again, the refcount is decreased
to 0, ata_host_release() is called, all ports are freed and set to
null.
When unbinding the device after failure, ata_host_stop() is called
to release the resources, it leads a null-ptr-deref(), because all
the ports all freed and null.
Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address 0000000000000008
CPU: 7 PID: 18671 Comm: modprobe Kdump: loaded Tainted: G E 6.1.0-rc3+ #8
pstate: 80400009 (Nzcv daif +PAN -UAO -TCO -DIT -SSBS BTYPE=--)
pc : ata_host_stop+0x3c/0x84 [libata]
lr : release_nodes+0x64/0xd0
Call trace:
ata_host_stop+0x3c/0x84 [libata]
release_nodes+0x64/0xd0
devres_release_all+0xbc/0x1b0
device_unbind_cleanup+0x20/0x70
really_probe+0x158/0x320
__driver_probe_device+0x84/0x120
driver_probe_device+0x44/0x120
__driver_attach+0xb4/0x220
bus_for_each_dev+0x78/0xdc
driver_attach+0x2c/0x40
bus_add_driver+0x184/0x240
driver_register+0x80/0x13c
__pci_register_driver+0x4c/0x60
ahci_pci_driver_init+0x30/0x1000 [ahci]
Fix this by removing redundant ata_host_put() in the error path.
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
- 0.2% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-27). 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