In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
block: fix request.queuelist usage in flush
Friedrich Weber reported a kernel crash problem and bisected to commit
81ada09cc25e ("blk-flush: reuse rq queuelist in flush state machine").
The root cause is that we use "list_move_tail(&rq->queuelist, pending)"
in the PREFLUSH/POSTFLUSH sequences. But rq->queuelist.next == xxx since
it's popped out from plug->cached_rq in __blk_mq_alloc_requests_batch().
We don't initialize its queuelist just for this first request, although
the queuelist of all later popped requests will be initialized.
Fix it by changing to use "list_add_tail(&rq->queuelist, pending)" so
rq->queuelist doesn't need to be initialized. It should be ok since rq
can't be on any list when PREFLUSH or POSTFLUSH, has no move actually.
Please note the commit 81ada09cc25e ("blk-flush: reuse rq queuelist in
flush state machine") also has another requirement that no drivers would
touch rq->queuelist after blk_mq_end_request() since we will reuse it to
add rq to the post-flush pending list in POSTFLUSH. If this is not true,
we will have to revert that commit IMHO.
This updated version adds "list_del_init(&rq->queuelist)" in flush rq
callback since the dm layer may submit request of a weird invalid format
(REQ_FSEQ_PREFLUSH | REQ_FSEQ_POSTFLUSH), which causes double list_add
if without this "list_del_init(&rq->queuelist)". The weird invalid format
problem should be fixed in dm layer.
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
- 0.3% 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