In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
dm thin: fix use-after-free crash in dm_sm_register_threshold_callback
Fault inject on pool metadata device reports:
BUG: KASAN: use-after-free in dm_pool_register_metadata_threshold+0x40/0x80
Read of size 8 at addr ffff8881b9d50068 by task dmsetup/950
CPU: 7 PID: 950 Comm: dmsetup Tainted: G W 5.19.0-rc6 #1
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.14.0-1.fc33 04/01/2014
Call Trace:
dump_stack_lvl+0x34/0x44
print_address_description.constprop.0.cold+0xeb/0x3f4
kasan_report.cold+0xe6/0x147
dm_pool_register_metadata_threshold+0x40/0x80
pool_ctr+0xa0a/0x1150
dm_table_add_target+0x2c8/0x640
table_load+0x1fd/0x430
ctl_ioctl+0x2c4/0x5a0
dm_ctl_ioctl+0xa/0x10
__x64_sys_ioctl+0xb3/0xd0
do_syscall_64+0x35/0x80
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x46/0xb0
This can be easily reproduced using:
echo offline > /sys/block/sda/device/state
dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/mapper/thin bs=4k count=10
dmsetup load pool --table "0 20971520 thin-pool /dev/sda /dev/sdb 128 0 0"
If a metadata commit fails, the transaction will be aborted and the
metadata space maps will be destroyed. If a DM table reload then
happens for this failed thin-pool, a use-after-free will occur in
dm_sm_register_threshold_callback (called from
dm_pool_register_metadata_threshold).
Fix this by in dm_pool_register_metadata_threshold() by returning the
-EINVAL error if the thin-pool is in fail mode. Also fail pool_ctr()
with a new error message: "Error registering metadata threshold".
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