In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
fs: don't misleadingly warn during thaw operations
The block device may have been frozen before it was claimed by a
filesystem. Concurrently another process might try to mount that
frozen block device and has temporarily claimed the block device for
that purpose causing a concurrent fs_bdev_thaw() to end up here. The
mounter is already about to abort mounting because they still saw an
elevanted bdev->bd_fsfreeze_count so get_bdev_super() will return
NULL in that case.
For example, P1 calls dm_suspend() which calls into bdev_freeze() before
the block device has been claimed by the filesystem. This brings
bdev->bd_fsfreeze_count to 1 and no call into fs_bdev_freeze() is
required.
Now P2 tries to mount that frozen block device. It claims it and checks
bdev->bd_fsfreeze_count. As it's elevated it aborts mounting.
In the meantime P3 called dm_resume(). P3 sees that the block device is
already claimed by a filesystem and calls into fs_bdev_thaw().
P3 takes a passive reference and realizes that the filesystem isn't
ready yet. P3 puts itself to sleep to wait for the filesystem to become
ready.
P2 now puts the last active reference to the filesystem and marks it as
dying. P3 gets woken, sees that the filesystem is dying and
get_bdev_super() fails.
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