In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
io_uring: lock overflowing for IOPOLL
syzbot reports an issue with overflow filling for IOPOLL:
WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 28 at io_uring/io_uring.c:734 io_cqring_event_overflow+0x1c0/0x230 io_uring/io_uring.c:734
CPU: 0 PID: 28 Comm: kworker/u4:1 Not tainted 6.2.0-rc3-syzkaller-16369-g358a161a6a9e #0
Workqueue: events_unbound io_ring_exit_work
Call trace:
io_cqring_event_overflow+0x1c0/0x230 io_uring/io_uring.c:734
io_req_cqe_overflow+0x5c/0x70 io_uring/io_uring.c:773
io_fill_cqe_req io_uring/io_uring.h:168 [inline]
io_do_iopoll+0x474/0x62c io_uring/rw.c:1065
io_iopoll_try_reap_events+0x6c/0x108 io_uring/io_uring.c:1513
io_uring_try_cancel_requests+0x13c/0x258 io_uring/io_uring.c:3056
io_ring_exit_work+0xec/0x390 io_uring/io_uring.c:2869
process_one_work+0x2d8/0x504 kernel/workqueue.c:2289
worker_thread+0x340/0x610 kernel/workqueue.c:2436
kthread+0x12c/0x158 kernel/kthread.c:376
ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20 arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S:863
There is no real problem for normal IOPOLL as flush is also called with
uring_lock taken, but it's getting more complicated for IOPOLL|SQPOLL,
for which __io_cqring_overflow_flush() happens from the CQ waiting path.
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