In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
padata: Fix refcnt handling in padata_free_shell()
In a high-load arm64 environment, the pcrypt_aead01 test in LTP can lead
to system UAF (Use-After-Free) issues. Due to the lengthy analysis of
the pcrypt_aead01 function call, I'll describe the problem scenario
using a simplified model:
Suppose there's a user of padata named user_function that adheres to
the padata requirement of calling padata_free_shell after serial()
has been invoked, as demonstrated in the following code:
struct request {
struct padata_priv padata;
struct completion *done;
};void parallel(struct padata_priv *padata) {
do_something();
}
void serial(struct padata_priv *padata) {
struct request *request = container_of(padata,
struct request,
padata);
complete(request->done);
}
void user_function() {
DECLARE_COMPLETION(done)
padata->parallel = parallel;
padata->serial = serial;
padata_do_parallel();
wait_for_completion(&done);
padata_free_shell();
}
In the corresponding padata.c file, there's the following code:
static void padata_serial_worker(struct work_struct *serial_work) {
...
cnt = 0; while (!list_empty(&local_list)) {
...
padata->serial(padata);
cnt++;
}
local_bh_enable();
if (refcount_sub_and_test(cnt, &pd->refcnt))
padata_free_pd(pd);
}
Because of the high system load and the accumulation of unexecuted
softirq at this moment, local_bh_enable() in padata takes longer
to execute than usual. Subsequently, when accessing pd->refcnt,
pd has already been released by padata_free_shell(), resulting
in a UAF issue with pd->refcnt.
The fix is straightforward: add refcount_dec_and_test before calling
padata_free_pd in padata_free_shell.
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 2026-10-27). 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 every mission impact level.CISA BOD 26-04: 60 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 every mission impact level.
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (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)60 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 partial (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