In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
USB: core: Prevent nested device-reset calls
Automatic kernel fuzzing revealed a recursive locking violation in
usb-storage:
============================================
WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
5.18.0 #3 Not tainted
--------------------------------------------
kworker/1:3/1205 is trying to acquire lock:
ffff888018638db8 (&us_interface_key[i]){+.+.}-{3:3}, at:
usb_stor_pre_reset+0x35/0x40 drivers/usb/storage/usb.c:230
but task is already holding lock:
ffff888018638db8 (&us_interface_key[i]){+.+.}-{3:3}, at:
usb_stor_pre_reset+0x35/0x40 drivers/usb/storage/usb.c:230
...
stack backtrace:
CPU: 1 PID: 1205 Comm: kworker/1:3 Not tainted 5.18.0 #3
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS
1.13.0-1ubuntu1.1 04/01/2014
Workqueue: usb_hub_wq hub_event
Call Trace:
__dump_stack lib/dump_stack.c:88 [inline]
dump_stack_lvl+0xcd/0x134 lib/dump_stack.c:106
print_deadlock_bug kernel/locking/lockdep.c:2988 [inline]
check_deadlock kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3031 [inline]
validate_chain kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3816 [inline]
__lock_acquire.cold+0x152/0x3ca kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5053
lock_acquire kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5665 [inline]
lock_acquire+0x1ab/0x520 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5630
__mutex_lock_common kernel/locking/mutex.c:603 [inline]
__mutex_lock+0x14f/0x1610 kernel/locking/mutex.c:747
usb_stor_pre_reset+0x35/0x40 drivers/usb/storage/usb.c:230
usb_reset_device+0x37d/0x9a0 drivers/usb/core/hub.c:6109
r871xu_dev_remove+0x21a/0x270 drivers/staging/rtl8712/usb_intf.c:622
usb_unbind_interface+0x1bd/0x890 drivers/usb/core/driver.c:458
device_remove drivers/base/dd.c:545 [inline]
device_remove+0x11f/0x170 drivers/base/dd.c:537
__device_release_driver drivers/base/dd.c:1222 [inline]
device_release_driver_internal+0x1a7/0x2f0 drivers/base/dd.c:1248
usb_driver_release_interface+0x102/0x180 drivers/usb/core/driver.c:627
usb_forced_unbind_intf+0x4d/0xa0 drivers/usb/core/driver.c:1118
usb_reset_device+0x39b/0x9a0 drivers/usb/core/hub.c:6114
This turned out not to be an error in usb-storage but rather a nested
device reset attempt. That is, as the rtl8712 driver was being
unbound from a composite device in preparation for an unrelated USB
reset (that driver does not have pre_reset or post_reset callbacks),
its ->remove routine called usb_reset_device() -- thus nesting one
reset call within another.
Performing a reset as part of disconnect processing is a questionable
practice at best. However, the bug report points out that the USB
core does not have any protection against nested resets. Adding a
reset_in_progress flag and testing it will prevent such errors in the
future.
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