In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
usb: gadget: u_serial: Fix the issue that gs_start_io crashed due to accessing null pointer
Considering that in some extreme cases,
when u_serial driver is accessed by multiple threads,
Thread A is executing the open operation and calling the gs_open,
Thread B is executing the disconnect operation and calling the
gserial_disconnect function,The port->port_usb pointer will be set to NULL.
E.g.
Thread A Thread B
gs_open() gadget_unbind_driver()
gs_start_io() composite_disconnect()
gs_start_rx() gserial_disconnect()
... ...
spin_unlock(&port->port_lock)
status = usb_ep_queue() spin_lock(&port->port_lock)
spin_lock(&port->port_lock) port->port_usb = NULL
gs_free_requests(port->port_usb->in) spin_unlock(&port->port_lock)
Crash
This causes thread A to access a null pointer (port->port_usb is null)
when calling the gs_free_requests function, causing a crash.
If port_usb is NULL, the release request will be skipped as it
will be done by gserial_disconnect.
So add a null pointer check to gs_start_io before attempting
to access the value of the pointer port->port_usb.
Call trace:
gs_start_io+0x164/0x25c
gs_open+0x108/0x13c
tty_open+0x314/0x638
chrdev_open+0x1b8/0x258
do_dentry_open+0x2c4/0x700
vfs_open+0x2c/0x3c
path_openat+0xa64/0xc60
do_filp_open+0xb8/0x164
do_sys_openat2+0x84/0xf0
__arm64_sys_openat+0x70/0x9c
invoke_syscall+0x58/0x114
el0_svc_common+0x80/0xe0
do_el0_svc+0x1c/0x28
el0_svc+0x38/0x68
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