In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ALSA: timer: don't re-enter an instance callback that is still running
The userspace-driven timer (utimer) TRIGGER ioctl calls
snd_timer_interrupt() directly with no serialization, so two threads
triggering the same utimer can run snd_timer_interrupt() on one
snd_timer concurrently.
snd_timer_process_callbacks() drops timer->lock around each instance
callback and marks the in-flight callback with the single
SNDRV_TIMER_IFLG_CALLBACK bit; snd_timer_close_locked() waits on that
bit to drain an in-flight callback before freeing the instance. The bit
cannot represent two concurrent callbacks: when a second interrupt
re-queues an instance whose callback is still running, both run at once,
the first to finish clears the bit, and the close-path drain then frees
the instance (and its callback_data) while the other callback is still
live - a use-after-free reachable by any user able to open
/dev/snd/timer, both via a user timer instance and via a sequencer queue
timer bound to the utimer.
snd_timer_interrupt() sets IFLG_CALLBACK before dropping timer->lock, so
a concurrent interrupt already observes it under the lock. Skip
re-queuing an instance (and its slaves) to the ack/sack list while its
callback is in flight; the accumulated pticks are delivered on the next
tick, so no event is lost.
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
- 0.1% 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