In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
misc: lis3lv02d_i2c: Fix regulators getting en-/dis-abled twice on suspend/resume
When not configured for wakeup lis3lv02d_i2c_suspend() will call
lis3lv02d_poweroff() even if the device has already been turned off
by the runtime-suspend handler and if configured for wakeup and
the device is runtime-suspended at this point then it is not turned
back on to serve as a wakeup source.
Before commit b1b9f7a49440 ("misc: lis3lv02d_i2c: Add missing setting
of the reg_ctrl callback"), lis3lv02d_poweroff() failed to disable
the regulators which as a side effect made calling poweroff() twice ok.
Now that poweroff() correctly disables the regulators, doing this twice
triggers a WARN() in the regulator core:
unbalanced disables for regulator-dummy
WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 92 at drivers/regulator/core.c:2999 _regulator_disable
...
Fix lis3lv02d_i2c_suspend() to not call poweroff() a second time if
already runtime-suspended and add a poweron() call when necessary to
make wakeup work.
lis3lv02d_i2c_resume() has similar issues, with an added weirness that
it always powers on the device if it is runtime suspended, after which
the first runtime-resume will call poweron() again, causing the enabled
count for the regulator to increase by 1 every suspend/resume. These
unbalanced regulator_enable() calls cause the regulator to never
be turned off and trigger the following WARN() on driver unbind:
WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 1724 at drivers/regulator/core.c:2396 _regulator_put
Fix this by making lis3lv02d_i2c_resume() mirror the new suspend().
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