In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
drm/xe/guc_submit: fix race around suspend_pending
Currently in some testcases we can trigger:
xe 0000:03:00.0: [drm] Assertion exec_queue_destroyed(q) failed!
....
WARNING: CPU: 18 PID: 2640 at drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_guc_submit.c:1826 xe_guc_sched_done_handler+0xa54/0xef0 [xe]
xe 0000:03:00.0: [drm] *ERROR* GT1: DEREGISTER_DONE: Unexpected engine state 0x00a1, guc_id=57
Looking at a snippet of corresponding ftrace for this GuC id we can see:
162.673311: xe_sched_msg_add: dev=0000:03:00.0, gt=1 guc_id=57, opcode=3
162.673317: xe_sched_msg_recv: dev=0000:03:00.0, gt=1 guc_id=57, opcode=3
162.673319: xe_exec_queue_scheduling_disable: dev=0000:03:00.0, 1:0x2, gt=1, width=1, guc_id=57, guc_state=0x29, flags=0x0
162.674089: xe_exec_queue_kill: dev=0000:03:00.0, 1:0x2, gt=1, width=1, guc_id=57, guc_state=0x29, flags=0x0
162.674108: xe_exec_queue_close: dev=0000:03:00.0, 1:0x2, gt=1, width=1, guc_id=57, guc_state=0xa9, flags=0x0
162.674488: xe_exec_queue_scheduling_done: dev=0000:03:00.0, 1:0x2, gt=1, width=1, guc_id=57, guc_state=0xa9, flags=0x0
162.678452: xe_exec_queue_deregister: dev=0000:03:00.0, 1:0x2, gt=1, width=1, guc_id=57, guc_state=0xa1, flags=0x0
It looks like we try to suspend the queue (opcode=3), setting
suspend_pending and triggering a disable_scheduling. The user then
closes the queue. However the close will also forcefully signal the
suspend fence after killing the queue, later when the G2H response for
disable_scheduling comes back we have now cleared suspend_pending when
signalling the suspend fence, so the disable_scheduling now incorrectly
tries to also deregister the queue. This leads to warnings since the queue
has yet to even be marked for destruction. We also seem to trigger
errors later with trying to double unregister the same queue.
To fix this tweak the ordering when handling the response to ensure we
don't race with a disable_scheduling that didn't actually intend to
perform an unregister. The destruction path should now also correctly
wait for any pending_disable before marking as destroyed.
(cherry picked from commit f161809b362f027b6d72bd998e47f8f0bad60a2e)
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (4.7): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 4.7 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 4.7 MEDIUMCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.1% 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 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