In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
usb: dwc2: fix possible NULL pointer dereference caused by driver concurrency
In _dwc2_hcd_urb_enqueue(), "urb->hcpriv = NULL" is executed without
holding the lock "hsotg->lock". In _dwc2_hcd_urb_dequeue():
spin_lock_irqsave(&hsotg->lock, flags);
...
if (!urb->hcpriv) {
dev_dbg(hsotg->dev, "## urb->hcpriv is NULL ##\n");
goto out;
}
rc = dwc2_hcd_urb_dequeue(hsotg, urb->hcpriv); // Use urb->hcpriv
...
out:
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&hsotg->lock, flags);
When _dwc2_hcd_urb_enqueue() and _dwc2_hcd_urb_dequeue() are
concurrently executed, the NULL check of "urb->hcpriv" can be executed
before "urb->hcpriv = NULL". After urb->hcpriv is NULL, it can be used
in the function call to dwc2_hcd_urb_dequeue(), which can cause a NULL
pointer dereference.
This possible bug is found by an experimental static analysis tool
developed by myself. This tool analyzes the locking APIs to extract
function pairs that can be concurrently executed, and then analyzes the
instructions in the paired functions to identify possible concurrency
bugs including data races and atomicity violations. The above possible
bug is reported, when my tool analyzes the source code of Linux 6.5.
To fix this possible bug, "urb->hcpriv = NULL" should be executed with
holding the lock "hsotg->lock". After using this patch, my tool never
reports the possible bug, with the kernelconfiguration allyesconfig for
x86_64. Because I have no associated hardware, I cannot test the patch
in runtime testing, and just verify it according to the code logic.
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 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