In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
i2c: piix4: Fix adapter not be removed in piix4_remove()
In piix4_probe(), the piix4 adapter will be registered in:
piix4_probe()
piix4_add_adapters_sb800() / piix4_add_adapter()
i2c_add_adapter()
Based on the probed device type, piix4_add_adapters_sb800() or single
piix4_add_adapter() will be called.
For the former case, piix4_adapter_count is set as the number of adapters,
while for antoher case it is not set and kept default *zero*.
When piix4 is removed, piix4_remove() removes the adapters added in
piix4_probe(), basing on the piix4_adapter_count value.
Because the count is zero for the single adapter case, the adapter won't
be removed and makes the sources allocated for adapter leaked, such as
the i2c client and device.
These sources can still be accessed by i2c or bus and cause problems.
An easily reproduced case is that if a new adapter is registered, i2c
will get the leaked adapter and try to call smbus_algorithm, which was
already freed:
Triggered by: rmmod i2c_piix4 && modprobe max31730
BUG: unable to handle page fault for address: ffffffffc053d860
#PF: supervisor read access in kernel mode
#PF: error_code(0x0000) - not-present page
Oops: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP KASAN
CPU: 0 PID: 3752 Comm: modprobe Tainted: G
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996)
RIP: 0010:i2c_default_probe (drivers/i2c/i2c-core-base.c:2259) i2c_core
RSP: 0018:ffff888107477710 EFLAGS: 00000246
...
i2c_detect (drivers/i2c/i2c-core-base.c:2302) i2c_core
__process_new_driver (drivers/i2c/i2c-core-base.c:1336) i2c_core
bus_for_each_dev (drivers/base/bus.c:301)
i2c_for_each_dev (drivers/i2c/i2c-core-base.c:1823) i2c_core
i2c_register_driver (drivers/i2c/i2c-core-base.c:1861) i2c_core
do_one_initcall (init/main.c:1296)
do_init_module (kernel/module/main.c:2455)
...
---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]---
Fix this problem by correctly set piix4_adapter_count as 1 for the
single adapter so it can be normally removed.
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 2026-10-28). 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