In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
pinctrl: mcp23s08: Fix sleeping in atomic context due to regmap locking
If a device uses MCP23xxx IO expander to receive IRQs, the following
bug can happen:
BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context
at kernel/locking/mutex.c:283
in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 1, non_block: 0, ...
preempt_count: 1, expected: 0
...
Call Trace:
...
__might_resched+0x104/0x10e
__might_sleep+0x3e/0x62
mutex_lock+0x20/0x4c
regmap_lock_mutex+0x10/0x18
regmap_update_bits_base+0x2c/0x66
mcp23s08_irq_set_type+0x1ae/0x1d6
__irq_set_trigger+0x56/0x172
__setup_irq+0x1e6/0x646
request_threaded_irq+0xb6/0x160
...
We observed the problem while experimenting with a touchscreen driver which
used MCP23017 IO expander (I2C).
The regmap in the pinctrl-mcp23s08 driver uses a mutex for protection from
concurrent accesses, which is the default for regmaps without .fast_io,
.disable_locking, etc.
mcp23s08_irq_set_type() calls regmap_update_bits_base(), and the latter
locks the mutex.
However, __setup_irq() locks desc->lock spinlock before calling these
functions. As a result, the system tries to lock the mutex whole holding
the spinlock.
It seems, the internal regmap locks are not needed in this driver at all.
mcp->lock seems to protect the regmap from concurrent accesses already,
except, probably, in mcp_pinconf_get/set.
mcp23s08_irq_set_type() and mcp23s08_irq_mask/unmask() are called under
chip_bus_lock(), which calls mcp23s08_irq_bus_lock(). The latter takes
mcp->lock and enables regmap caching, so that the potentially slow I2C
accesses are deferred until chip_bus_unlock().
The accesses to the regmap from mcp23s08_probe_one() do not need additional
locking.
In all remaining places where the regmap is accessed, except
mcp_pinconf_get/set(), the driver already takes mcp->lock.
This patch adds locking in mcp_pinconf_get/set() and disables internal
locking in the regmap config. Among other things, it fixes the sleeping
in atomic context described above.
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 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