In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
dm thin: make get_first_thin use rcu-safe list first function
The documentation in rculist.h explains the absence of list_empty_rcu()
and cautions programmers against relying on a list_empty() ->
list_first() sequence in RCU safe code. This is because each of these
functions performs its own READ_ONCE() of the list head. This can lead
to a situation where the list_empty() sees a valid list entry, but the
subsequent list_first() sees a different view of list head state after a
modification.
In the case of dm-thin, this author had a production box crash from a GP
fault in the process_deferred_bios path. This function saw a valid list
head in get_first_thin() but when it subsequently dereferenced that and
turned it into a thin_c, it got the inside of the struct pool, since the
list was now empty and referring to itself. The kernel on which this
occurred printed both a warning about a refcount_t being saturated, and
a UBSAN error for an out-of-bounds cpuid access in the queued spinlock,
prior to the fault itself. When the resulting kdump was examined, it
was possible to see another thread patiently waiting in thin_dtr's
synchronize_rcu.
The thin_dtr call managed to pull the thin_c out of the active thins
list (and have it be the last entry in the active_thins list) at just
the wrong moment which lead to this crash.
Fortunately, the fix here is straight forward. Switch get_first_thin()
function to use list_first_or_null_rcu() which performs just a single
READ_ONCE() and returns NULL if the list is already empty.
This was run against the devicemapper test suite's thin-provisioning
suites for delete and suspend and no regressions were observed.
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 (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (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)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 Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (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