In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
clk: mmp2: call pm_genpd_init() only after genpd.name is set
Setting the genpd's struct device's name with dev_set_name() is
happening within pm_genpd_init(). If it remains NULL, things can blow up
later, such as when crafting the devfs hierarchy for the power domain:
Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address 00000000 when read
...
Call trace:
strlen from start_creating+0x90/0x138
start_creating from debugfs_create_dir+0x20/0x178
debugfs_create_dir from genpd_debug_add.part.0+0x4c/0x144
genpd_debug_add.part.0 from genpd_debug_init+0x74/0x90
genpd_debug_init from do_one_initcall+0x5c/0x244
do_one_initcall from kernel_init_freeable+0x19c/0x1f4
kernel_init_freeable from kernel_init+0x1c/0x12c
kernel_init from ret_from_fork+0x14/0x28
Bisecting tracks this crash back to commit 899f44531fe6 ("pmdomain: core:
Add GENPD_FLAG_DEV_NAME_FW flag"), which exchanges use of genpd->name
with dev_name(&genpd->dev) in genpd_debug_add.part().
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