In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
nvmet: pci-epf: Do not complete commands twice if nvmet_req_init() fails
Have nvmet_req_init() and req->execute() complete failed commands.
Description of the problem:
nvmet_req_init() calls __nvmet_req_complete() internally upon failure,
e.g., unsupported opcode, which calls the "queue_response" callback,
this results in nvmet_pci_epf_queue_response() being called, which will
call nvmet_pci_epf_complete_iod() if data_len is 0 or if dma_dir is
different from DMA_TO_DEVICE. This results in a double completion as
nvmet_pci_epf_exec_iod_work() also calls nvmet_pci_epf_complete_iod()
when nvmet_req_init() fails.
Steps to reproduce:
On the host send a command with an unsupported opcode with nvme-cli,
For example the admin command "security receive"
$ sudo nvme security-recv /dev/nvme0n1 -n1 -x4096
This triggers a double completion as nvmet_req_init() fails and
nvmet_pci_epf_queue_response() is called, here iod->dma_dir is still
in the default state of "DMA_NONE" as set by default in
nvmet_pci_epf_alloc_iod(), so nvmet_pci_epf_complete_iod() is called.
Because nvmet_req_init() failed nvmet_pci_epf_complete_iod() is also
called in nvmet_pci_epf_exec_iod_work() leading to a double completion.
This not only sends two completions to the host but also corrupts the
state of the PCI NVMe target leading to kernel oops.
This patch lets nvmet_req_init() and req->execute() complete all failed
commands, and removes the double completion case in
nvmet_pci_epf_exec_iod_work() therefore fixing the edge cases where
double completions occurred.
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 2026-10-24). 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 fixed version is listed under Patch Availability. 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