In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
s390/ism: fix concurrency management in ism_cmd()
The s390x ISM device data sheet clearly states that only one
request-response sequence is allowable per ISM function at any point in
time. Unfortunately as of today the s390/ism driver in Linux does not
honor that requirement. This patch aims to rectify that.
This problem was discovered based on Aliaksei's bug report which states
that for certain workloads the ISM functions end up entering error state
(with PEC 2 as seen from the logs) after a while and as a consequence
connections handled by the respective function break, and for future
connection requests the ISM device is not considered -- given it is in a
dysfunctional state. During further debugging PEC 3A was observed as
well.
A kernel message like
[ 1211.244319] zpci: 061a:00:00.0: Event 0x2 reports an error for PCI function 0x61a
is a reliable indicator of the stated function entering error state
with PEC 2. Let me also point out that a kernel message like
[ 1211.244325] zpci: 061a:00:00.0: The ism driver bound to the device does not support error recovery
is a reliable indicator that the ISM function won't be auto-recovered
because the ISM driver currently lacks support for it.
On a technical level, without this synchronization, commands (inputs to
the FW) may be partially or fully overwritten (corrupted) by another CPU
trying to issue commands on the same function. There is hard evidence that
this can lead to DMB token values being used as DMB IOVAs, leading to
PEC 2 PCI events indicating invalid DMA. But this is only one of the
failure modes imaginable. In theory even completely losing one command
and executing another one twice and then trying to interpret the outputs
as if the command we intended to execute was actually executed and not
the other one is also possible. Frankly, I don't feel confident about
providing an exhaustive list of possible consequences.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (4.7): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 4.7 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 4.7 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 2026-10-29). 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; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 3 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days 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; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (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)3 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days if it is not.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (CISA Vulnrichment). 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