In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
hwmon: (acpi_power_meter) Fix deadlocks related to acpi_power_meter_notify()
The acpi_power_meter driver's .notify() callback function,
acpi_power_meter_notify(), calls hwmon_device_unregister() under a lock
that is also acquired by callbacks in sysfs attributes of the device
being unregistered which is prone to deadlocks between sysfs access and
device removal.
Address this by moving the hwmon device removal in
acpi_power_meter_notify() outside the lock in question, but notice
that doing it alone is not sufficient because two concurrent
METER_NOTIFY_CONFIG notifications may be attempting to remove the
same device at the same time. To prevent that from happening, add a
new lock serializing the execution of the switch () statement in
acpi_power_meter_notify(). For simplicity, it is a static mutex
which should not be a problem from the performance perspective.
The new lock also allows the hwmon_device_register_with_info()
in acpi_power_meter_notify() to be called outside the inner lock
because it prevents the other notifications handled by that function
from manipulating the "resource" object while the hwmon device based
on it is being registered. The sending of ACPI netlink messages from
acpi_power_meter_notify() is serialized by the new lock too which
generally helps to ensure that the order of handling firmware
notifications is the same as the order of sending netlink messages
related to them.
In addition, notice that hwmon_device_register_with_info() may fail
in which case resource->hwmon_dev will become an error pointer,
so add checks to avoid attempting to unregister the hwmon device
pointer to by it in that case to acpi_power_meter_notify() and
acpi_power_meter_remove().
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