In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
Bluetooth: hci_uart: fix UAFs and race conditions in close and init paths
Vulnerabilities leading to Use-After-Free (UAF) and Null Pointer
Dereference (NPD) conditions were observed in the lifecycle management
of hci_uart.
The primary issue arises because the workqueues (init_ready and
write_work) are only flushed/cancelled if the HCI_UART_PROTO_READY
flag is set during TTY close. If a hangup occurs before setup completes,
hci_uart_tty_close() skips the teardown of these workqueues and
proceeds to free the hu struct. When the scheduled work executes
later, it blindly dereferences the freed hu struct.
Furthermore, several data races and UAFs were identified in the teardown
sequence:
- Calling hci_uart_flush() from hci_uart_close() without effectively
disabling write_work causes a race condition where both can concurrently
double-free hu->tx_skb. This happens because protocol timers can
concurrently invoke hci_uart_tx_wakeup() and requeue write_work.
- Calling hci_free_dev(hdev) before hu->proto->close(hu) causes a UAF
when vendor specific protocol close callbacks dereference hu->hdev.
- In the initialization error paths, failing to take the proto_lock
write lock before clearing PROTO_READY leads to races with active
readers. Additionally, hci_uart_tty_receive() accesses hu->hdev
outside the read lock, leading to UAFs if the initialization error
path frees hdev concurrently.
Fix these synchronization and lifecycle issues by:
- Re-ordering hci_uart_tty_close() to clear HCI_UART_PROTO_READY first,
followed immediately by a cancel_work_sync(&hu->write_work). Clearing
the flag locks out concurrent protocol timers from successfully invoking
hci_uart_tx_wakeup(), effectively rendering the cancellation permanent
and preventing the tx_skb double-free.
- Note: Clearing PROTO_READY early causes hci_uart_close() to skip
hu->proto->flush(). This is perfectly safe in the tty_close path
because hu->proto->close() executes shortly after, which intrinsically
purges all protocol SKB queues and tears down the state.
- Relocating hu->proto->close(hu) strictly prior to hci_free_dev(hdev)
across all close and error paths to prevent vendor-level UAFs.
- Moving the hdev->stat.byte_rx increment in hci_uart_tty_receive()
inside the proto_lock read-side critical section to safely synchronize
with device unregistration.
- Adding cancel_work_sync(&hu->write_work) to hci_uart_close() to safely
flush the workqueue before hci_uart_flush() is invoked via the HCI core.
- Utilizing cancel_work_sync() instead of disable_work_sync() across
all paths to prevent permanently breaking user-space retry capabilities.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.8 HIGHCVSS-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 2026-10-27). 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 (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (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)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 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