In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
RDMA/cma: Fix workqueue crash in cma_netevent_work_handler
struct rdma_cm_id has member "struct work_struct net_work"
that is reused for enqueuing cma_netevent_work_handler()s
onto cma_wq.
Below crash[1] can occur if more than one call to
cma_netevent_callback() occurs in quick succession,
which further enqueues cma_netevent_work_handler()s for the
same rdma_cm_id, overwriting any previously queued work-item(s)
that was just scheduled to run i.e. there is no guarantee
the queued work item may run between two successive calls
to cma_netevent_callback() and the 2nd INIT_WORK would overwrite
the 1st work item (for the same rdma_cm_id), despite grabbing
id_table_lock during enqueue.
Also drgn analysis [2] indicates the work item was likely overwritten.
Fix this by moving the INIT_WORK() to __rdma_create_id(),
so that it doesn't race with any existing queue_work() or
its worker thread.
[1] Trimmed crash stack:
=============================================
BUG: kernel NULL pointer dereference, address: 0000000000000008
kworker/u256:6 ... 6.12.0-0...
Workqueue: cma_netevent_work_handler [rdma_cm] (rdma_cm)
RIP: 0010:process_one_work+0xba/0x31a
Call Trace:
worker_thread+0x266/0x3a0
kthread+0xcf/0x100
ret_from_fork+0x31/0x50
ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30
=============================================
[2] drgn crash analysis:
>>> trace = prog.crashed_thread().stack_trace()
>>> trace
(0) crash_setup_regs (./arch/x86/include/asm/kexec.h:111:15)
(1) __crash_kexec (kernel/crash_core.c:122:4)
(2) panic (kernel/panic.c:399:3)
(3) oops_end (arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack.c:382:3)
...
(8) process_one_work (kernel/workqueue.c:3168:2)
(9) process_scheduled_works (kernel/workqueue.c:3310:3)
(10) worker_thread (kernel/workqueue.c:3391:4)
(11) kthread (kernel/kthread.c:389:9)
Line workqueue.c:3168 for this kernel version is in process_one_work():
3168 strscpy(worker->desc, pwq->wq->name, WORKER_DESC_LEN);
>>> trace[8]["work"]
*(struct work_struct *)0xffff92577d0a21d8 = {
.data = (atomic_long_t){
.counter = (s64)536870912, <=== Note
},
.entry = (struct list_head){
.next = (struct list_head *)0xffff924d075924c0,
.prev = (struct list_head *)0xffff924d075924c0,
},
.func = (work_func_t)cma_netevent_work_handler+0x0 = 0xffffffffc2cec280,
}
Suspicion is that pwq is NULL:
>>> trace[8]["pwq"]
(struct pool_workqueue *)
In process_one_work(), pwq is assigned from:
struct pool_workqueue *pwq = get_work_pwq(work);
and get_work_pwq() is:
static struct pool_workqueue *get_work_pwq(struct work_struct *work)
{
unsigned long data = atomic_long_read(&work->data);
if (data & WORK_STRUCT_PWQ)
return work_struct_pwq(data);
else
return NULL;
}
WORK_STRUCT_PWQ is 0x4:
>>> print(repr(prog['WORK_STRUCT_PWQ']))
Object(prog, 'enum work_flags', value=4)
But work->data is 536870912 which is 0x20000000.
So, get_work_pwq() returns NULL and we crash in process_one_work():
3168 strscpy(worker->desc, pwq->wq->name, WORKER_DESC_LEN);
=============================================
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