In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
vhost-scsi: Fix handling of multiple calls to vhost_scsi_set_endpoint
If vhost_scsi_set_endpoint is called multiple times without a
vhost_scsi_clear_endpoint between them, we can hit multiple bugs
found by Haoran Zhang:
- Use-after-free when no tpgs are found:
This fixes a use after free that occurs when vhost_scsi_set_endpoint is
called more than once and calls after the first call do not find any
tpgs to add to the vs_tpg. When vhost_scsi_set_endpoint first finds
tpgs to add to the vs_tpg array match=true, so we will do:
vhost_vq_set_backend(vq, vs_tpg);
...
kfree(vs->vs_tpg);
vs->vs_tpg = vs_tpg;
If vhost_scsi_set_endpoint is called again and no tpgs are found
match=false so we skip the vhost_vq_set_backend call leaving the
pointer to the vs_tpg we then free via:
kfree(vs->vs_tpg);
vs->vs_tpg = vs_tpg;
If a scsi request is then sent we do:
vhost_scsi_handle_vq -> vhost_scsi_get_req -> vhost_vq_get_backend
which sees the vs_tpg we just did a kfree on.
This patch fixes an issue where we cannot remove a LIO/target layer
tpg (and structs above it like the target) dir due to the refcount
dropping to -1.
The problem is that if vhost_scsi_set_endpoint detects a tpg is already
in the vs->vs_tpg array or if the tpg has been removed so
target_depend_item fails, the undepend goto handler will do
target_undepend_item on all tpgs in the vs_tpg array dropping their
refcount to 0. At this time vs_tpg contains both the tpgs we have added
in the current vhost_scsi_set_endpoint call as well as tpgs we added in
previous calls which are also in vs->vs_tpg.
Later, when vhost_scsi_clear_endpoint runs it will do
target_undepend_item on all the tpgs in the vs->vs_tpg which will drop
their refcount to -1. Userspace will then not be able to remove the tpg
and will hang when it tries to do rmdir on the tpg dir.
This fixes a bug where we can leak tpgs and cause them to be
un-removable because the target name is overwritten when
vhost_scsi_set_endpoint is called multiple times but with different
target names.
The bug occurs if a user has called VHOST_SCSI_SET_ENDPOINT and setup
a vhost-scsi device to target/tpg mapping, then calls
VHOST_SCSI_SET_ENDPOINT again with a new target name that has tpgs we
haven't seen before (target1 has tpg1 but target2 has tpg2). When this
happens we don't teardown the old target tpg mapping and just overwrite
the target name and the vs->vs_tpg array. Later when we do
vhost_scsi_clear_endpoint, we are passed in either target1 or target2's
name and we will only match that target's tpgs when we loop over the
vs->vs_tpg. We will then return from the function without doing
target_undepend_item on the tpgs.
Because of all these bugs, it looks like being able to call
vhost_scsi_set_endpoint multiple times was never supported. The major
user, QEMU, already has checks to prevent this use case. So to fix the
issues, this patch prevents vhost_scsi_set_endpoint from being called
if it's already successfully added tpgs. To add, remove or change the
tpg config or target name, you must do a vhost_scsi_clear_endpoint
first.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.8 HIGHCVSS-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 2026-10-28). 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