In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
net/handshake: Use spin_lock_bh for hn_lock
nvmet_tcp_state_change(), a socket callback that runs in BH context,
can reach handshake_req_cancel() via nvmet_tcp_schedule_release_queue()
and tls_handshake_cancel(). handshake_req_cancel() acquires
hn->hn_lock with plain spin_lock(). If a process-context thread on
the same CPU holds hn->hn_lock when a softirq invokes the cancel path,
the lock attempt deadlocks. This is the only caller that invokes
tls_handshake_cancel() from BH context; every other consumer calls it
from process context.
Deferring the cancel to process context in the NVMe target is not
straightforward: nvmet_tcp_schedule_release_queue() must call
tls_handshake_cancel() atomically with its state transition to
DISCONNECTING. If the cancel were deferred, the handshake completion
callback could fire in the window before the cancel runs, observe the
unexpected state, and return without dropping its kref on the queue.
Reworking that interlock is considerably more invasive than hardening
the handshake lock. Convert all hn->hn_lock acquisitions from
spin_lock/spin_unlock to spin_lock_bh/spin_unlock_bh so the lock is
never taken with softirqs enabled.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.5): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.5 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.5 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.3% 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; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 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 partial (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; 60 days if it is not.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (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