In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
coresight: cti: Fix hang in cti_disable_hw()
cti_enable_hw() and cti_disable_hw() are called from an atomic context
so shouldn't use runtime PM because it can result in a sleep when
communicating with firmware.
Since commit 3c6656337852 ("Revert "firmware: arm_scmi: Add clock
management to the SCMI power domain""), this causes a hang on Juno when
running the Perf Coresight tests or running this command:
perf record -e cs_etm//u -- ls
This was also missed until the revert commit because pm_runtime_put()
was called with the wrong device until commit 692c9a499b28 ("coresight:
cti: Correct the parameter for pm_runtime_put")
With lock and scheduler debugging enabled the following is output:
coresight cti_sys0: cti_enable_hw -- dev:cti_sys0 parent: 20020000.cti
BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at drivers/base/power/runtime.c:1151
in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 128, non_block: 0, pid: 330, name: perf-exec
preempt_count: 2, expected: 0
RCU nest depth: 0, expected: 0
INFO: lockdep is turned off.
irq event stamp: 0
hardirqs last enabled at (0): [<0000000000000000>] 0x0
hardirqs last disabled at (0): [] copy_process+0xa0c/0x1948
softirqs last enabled at (0): [] copy_process+0xa0c/0x1948
softirqs last disabled at (0): [<0000000000000000>] 0x0
CPU: 3 PID: 330 Comm: perf-exec Not tainted 6.0.0-00053-g042116d99298 #7
Hardware name: ARM LTD ARM Juno Development Platform/ARM Juno Development Platform, BIOS EDK II Sep 13 2022
Call trace:
dump_backtrace+0x134/0x140
show_stack+0x20/0x58
dump_stack_lvl+0x8c/0xb8
dump_stack+0x18/0x34
__might_resched+0x180/0x228
__might_sleep+0x50/0x88
__pm_runtime_resume+0xac/0xb0
cti_enable+0x44/0x120
coresight_control_assoc_ectdev+0xc0/0x150
coresight_enable_path+0xb4/0x288
etm_event_start+0x138/0x170
etm_event_add+0x48/0x70
event_sched_in.isra.122+0xb4/0x280
merge_sched_in+0x1fc/0x3d0
visit_groups_merge.constprop.137+0x16c/0x4b0
ctx_sched_in+0x114/0x1f0
perf_event_sched_in+0x60/0x90
ctx_resched+0x68/0xb0
perf_event_exec+0x138/0x508
begin_new_exec+0x52c/0xd40
load_elf_binary+0x6b8/0x17d0
bprm_execve+0x360/0x7f8
do_execveat_common.isra.47+0x218/0x238
__arm64_sys_execve+0x48/0x60
invoke_syscall+0x4c/0x110
el0_svc_common.constprop.4+0xfc/0x120
do_el0_svc+0x34/0xc0
el0_svc+0x40/0x98
el0t_64_sync_handler+0x98/0xc0
el0t_64_sync+0x170/0x174
Fix the issue by removing the runtime PM calls completely. They are not
needed here because it must have already been done when building the
path for a trace.
[ Fix build warnings ]
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