In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
wifi: plfxlc: Remove erroneous assert in plfxlc_mac_release
plfxlc_mac_release() asserts that mac->lock is held. This assertion is
incorrect, because even if it was possible, it would not be the valid
behaviour. The function is used when probe fails or after the device is
disconnected. In both cases mac->lock can not be held as the driver is
not working with the device at the moment. All functions that use mac->lock
unlock it just after it was held. There is also no need to hold mac->lock
for plfxlc_mac_release() itself, as mac data is not affected, except for
mac->flags, which is modified atomically.
This bug leads to the following warning:
================================================================
WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 127 at drivers/net/wireless/purelifi/plfxlc/mac.c:106 plfxlc_mac_release+0x7d/0xa0
Modules linked in:
CPU: 0 PID: 127 Comm: kworker/0:2 Not tainted 6.1.124-syzkaller #0
Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS Google 09/13/2024
Workqueue: usb_hub_wq hub_event
RIP: 0010:plfxlc_mac_release+0x7d/0xa0 drivers/net/wireless/purelifi/plfxlc/mac.c:106
Call Trace:
probe+0x941/0xbd0 drivers/net/wireless/purelifi/plfxlc/usb.c:694
usb_probe_interface+0x5c0/0xaf0 drivers/usb/core/driver.c:396
really_probe+0x2ab/0xcb0 drivers/base/dd.c:639
__driver_probe_device+0x1a2/0x3d0 drivers/base/dd.c:785
driver_probe_device+0x50/0x420 drivers/base/dd.c:815
__device_attach_driver+0x2cf/0x510 drivers/base/dd.c:943
bus_for_each_drv+0x183/0x200 drivers/base/bus.c:429
__device_attach+0x359/0x570 drivers/base/dd.c:1015
bus_probe_device+0xba/0x1e0 drivers/base/bus.c:489
device_add+0xb48/0xfd0 drivers/base/core.c:3696
usb_set_configuration+0x19dd/0x2020 drivers/usb/core/message.c:2165
usb_generic_driver_probe+0x84/0x140 drivers/usb/core/generic.c:238
usb_probe_device+0x130/0x260 drivers/usb/core/driver.c:293
really_probe+0x2ab/0xcb0 drivers/base/dd.c:639
__driver_probe_device+0x1a2/0x3d0 drivers/base/dd.c:785
driver_probe_device+0x50/0x420 drivers/base/dd.c:815
__device_attach_driver+0x2cf/0x510 drivers/base/dd.c:943
bus_for_each_drv+0x183/0x200 drivers/base/bus.c:429
__device_attach+0x359/0x570 drivers/base/dd.c:1015
bus_probe_device+0xba/0x1e0 drivers/base/bus.c:489
device_add+0xb48/0xfd0 drivers/base/core.c:3696
usb_new_device+0xbdd/0x18f0 drivers/usb/core/hub.c:2620
hub_port_connect drivers/usb/core/hub.c:5477 [inline]
hub_port_connect_change drivers/usb/core/hub.c:5617 [inline]
port_event drivers/usb/core/hub.c:5773 [inline]
hub_event+0x2efe/0x5730 drivers/usb/core/hub.c:5855
process_one_work+0x8a9/0x11d0 kernel/workqueue.c:2292
worker_thread+0xa47/0x1200 kernel/workqueue.c:2439
kthread+0x28d/0x320 kernel/kthread.c:376
ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30 arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:295
================================================================
Found by Linux Verification Center (linuxtesting.org) with Syzkaller.
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