In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
scsi: core: Fix unremoved procfs host directory regression
Commit fc663711b944 ("scsi: core: Remove the /proc/scsi/${proc_name}
directory earlier") fixed a bug related to modules loading/unloading, by
adding a call to scsi_proc_hostdir_rm() on scsi_remove_host(). But that led
to a potential duplicate call to the hostdir_rm() routine, since it's also
called from scsi_host_dev_release(). That triggered a regression report,
which was then fixed by commit be03df3d4bfe ("scsi: core: Fix a procfs host
directory removal regression"). The fix just dropped the hostdir_rm() call
from dev_release().
But it happens that this proc directory is created on scsi_host_alloc(),
and that function "pairs" with scsi_host_dev_release(), while
scsi_remove_host() pairs with scsi_add_host(). In other words, it seems the
reason for removing the proc directory on dev_release() was meant to cover
cases in which a SCSI host structure was allocated, but the call to
scsi_add_host() didn't happen. And that pattern happens to exist in some
error paths, for example.
Syzkaller causes that by using USB raw gadget device, error'ing on
usb-storage driver, at usb_stor_probe2(). By checking that path, we can see
that the BadDevice label leads to a scsi_host_put() after a SCSI host
allocation, but there's no call to scsi_add_host() in such path. That leads
to messages like this in dmesg (and a leak of the SCSI host proc
structure):
usb-storage 4-1:87.51: USB Mass Storage device detected
proc_dir_entry 'scsi/usb-storage' already registered
WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 3519 at fs/proc/generic.c:377 proc_register+0x347/0x4e0 fs/proc/generic.c:376
The proper fix seems to still call scsi_proc_hostdir_rm() on dev_release(),
but guard that with the state check for SHOST_CREATED; there is even a
comment in scsi_host_dev_release() detailing that: such conditional is
meant for cases where the SCSI host was allocated but there was no calls to
{add,remove}_host(), like the usb-storage case.
This is what we propose here and with that, the error path of usb-storage
does not trigger the warning anymore.
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