In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
block, bfq: fix possible uaf for 'bfqq->bic'
Our test report a uaf for 'bfqq->bic' in 5.10:
==================================================================
BUG: KASAN: use-after-free in bfq_select_queue+0x378/0xa30
CPU: 6 PID: 2318352 Comm: fsstress Kdump: loaded Not tainted 5.10.0-60.18.0.50.h602.kasan.eulerosv2r11.x86_64 #1
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS rel-1.12.1-0-ga5cab58-20220320_160524-szxrtosci10000 04/01/2014
Call Trace:
bfq_select_queue+0x378/0xa30
bfq_dispatch_request+0xe8/0x130
blk_mq_do_dispatch_sched+0x62/0xb0
__blk_mq_sched_dispatch_requests+0x215/0x2a0
blk_mq_sched_dispatch_requests+0x8f/0xd0
__blk_mq_run_hw_queue+0x98/0x180
__blk_mq_delay_run_hw_queue+0x22b/0x240
blk_mq_run_hw_queue+0xe3/0x190
blk_mq_sched_insert_requests+0x107/0x200
blk_mq_flush_plug_list+0x26e/0x3c0
blk_finish_plug+0x63/0x90
__iomap_dio_rw+0x7b5/0x910
iomap_dio_rw+0x36/0x80
ext4_dio_read_iter+0x146/0x190 [ext4]
ext4_file_read_iter+0x1e2/0x230 [ext4]
new_sync_read+0x29f/0x400
vfs_read+0x24e/0x2d0
ksys_read+0xd5/0x1b0
do_syscall_64+0x33/0x40
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x61/0xc6
Commit 3bc5e683c67d ("bfq: Split shared queues on move between cgroups")
changes that move process to a new cgroup will allocate a new bfqq to
use, however, the old bfqq and new bfqq can point to the same bic:
1) Initial state, two process with io in the same cgroup.
Process 1 Process 2
(BIC1) (BIC2)
| Λ | Λ
| | | |
V | V |
bfqq1 bfqq2
2) bfqq1 is merged to bfqq2.
Process 1 Process 2
(BIC1) (BIC2)
| |
\-------------\|
V
bfqq1 bfqq2(coop)
3) Process 1 exit, then issue new io(denoce IOA) from Process 2.
(BIC2)
| Λ
| |
V |
bfqq2(coop)
4) Before IOA is completed, move Process 2 to another cgroup and issue io.
Process 2
(BIC2)
Λ
|\--------------\
| V
bfqq2 bfqq3
Now that BIC2 points to bfqq3, while bfqq2 and bfqq3 both point to BIC2.
If all the requests are completed, and Process 2 exit, BIC2 will be
freed while there is no guarantee that bfqq2 will be freed before BIC2.
Fix the problem by clearing bfqq->bic while bfqq is detached from bic.
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 2026-10-29). 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