In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
PCI: s390: Fix use-after-free of PCI resources with per-function hotplug
On s390 PCI functions may be hotplugged individually even when they
belong to a multi-function device. In particular on an SR-IOV device VFs
may be removed and later re-added.
In commit a50297cf8235 ("s390/pci: separate zbus creation from
scanning") it was missed however that struct pci_bus and struct
zpci_bus's resource list retained a reference to the PCI functions MMIO
resources even though those resources are released and freed on
hot-unplug. These stale resources may subsequently be claimed when the
PCI function re-appears resulting in use-after-free.
One idea of fixing this use-after-free in s390 specific code that was
investigated was to simply keep resources around from the moment a PCI
function first appeared until the whole virtual PCI bus created for
a multi-function device disappears. The problem with this however is
that due to the requirement of artificial MMIO addreesses (address
cookies) extra logic is then needed to keep the address cookies
compatible on re-plug. At the same time the MMIO resources semantically
belong to the PCI function so tying their lifecycle to the function
seems more logical.
Instead a simpler approach is to remove the resources of an individually
hot-unplugged PCI function from the PCI bus's resource list while
keeping the resources of other PCI functions on the PCI bus untouched.
This is done by introducing pci_bus_remove_resource() to remove an
individual resource. Similarly the resource also needs to be removed
from the struct zpci_bus's resource list. It turns out however, that
there is really no need to add the MMIO resources to the struct
zpci_bus's resource list at all and instead we can simply use the
zpci_bar_struct's resource pointer directly.
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 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