In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
scsi: ufs: ufs-qcom: Fix ESI null pointer dereference
ESI/MSI is a performance optimization feature that provides dedicated
interrupts per MCQ hardware queue. This is optional feature and UFS MCQ
should work with and without ESI feature.
Commit e46a28cea29a ("scsi: ufs: qcom: Remove the MSI descriptor abuse")
brings a regression in ESI (Enhanced System Interrupt) configuration that
causes a null pointer dereference when Platform MSI allocation fails.
The issue occurs in when platform_device_msi_init_and_alloc_irqs() in
ufs_qcom_config_esi() fails (returns -EINVAL) but the current code uses
__free() macro for automatic cleanup free MSI resources that were never
successfully allocated.
Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual
address 0000000000000008
Call trace:
mutex_lock+0xc/0x54 (P)
platform_device_msi_free_irqs_all+0x1c/0x40
ufs_qcom_config_esi+0x1d0/0x220 [ufs_qcom]
ufshcd_config_mcq+0x28/0x104
ufshcd_init+0xa3c/0xf40
ufshcd_pltfrm_init+0x504/0x7d4
ufs_qcom_probe+0x20/0x58 [ufs_qcom]
Fix by restructuring the ESI configuration to try MSI allocation first,
before any other resource allocation and instead use explicit cleanup
instead of __free() macro to avoid cleanup of unallocated resources.
Tested on SM8750 platform with MCQ enabled, both with and without
Platform ESI support.
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
- 0.1% 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 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