In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
USB: core: Fix hang in usb_kill_urb by adding memory barriers
The syzbot fuzzer has identified a bug in which processes hang waiting
for usb_kill_urb() to return. It turns out the issue is not unlinking
the URB; that works just fine. Rather, the problem arises when the
wakeup notification that the URB has completed is not received.
The reason is memory-access ordering on SMP systems. In outline form,
usb_kill_urb() and __usb_hcd_giveback_urb() operating concurrently on
different CPUs perform the following actions:
CPU 0 CPU 1
---------------------------- ---------------------------------
usb_kill_urb(): __usb_hcd_giveback_urb():
... ...
atomic_inc(&urb->reject); atomic_dec(&urb->use_count);
... ...
wait_event(usb_kill_urb_queue,
atomic_read(&urb->use_count) == 0);
if (atomic_read(&urb->reject))
wake_up(&usb_kill_urb_queue);
Confining your attention to urb->reject and urb->use_count, you can
see that the overall pattern of accesses on CPU 0 is:
write urb->reject, then read urb->use_count;
whereas the overall pattern of accesses on CPU 1 is:
write urb->use_count, then read urb->reject.
This pattern is referred to in memory-model circles as SB (for "Store
Buffering"), and it is well known that without suitable enforcement of
the desired order of accesses -- in the form of memory barriers -- it
is entirely possible for one or both CPUs to execute their reads ahead
of their writes. The end result will be that sometimes CPU 0 sees the
old un-decremented value of urb->use_count while CPU 1 sees the old
un-incremented value of urb->reject. Consequently CPU 0 ends up on
the wait queue and never gets woken up, leading to the observed hang
in usb_kill_urb().
The same pattern of accesses occurs in usb_poison_urb() and the
failure pathway of usb_hcd_submit_urb().
The problem is fixed by adding suitable memory barriers. To provide
proper memory-access ordering in the SB pattern, a full barrier is
required on both CPUs. The atomic_inc() and atomic_dec() accesses
themselves don't provide any memory ordering, but since they are
present, we can use the optimized smp_mb__after_atomic() memory
barrier in the various routines to obtain the desired effect.
This patch adds the necessary memory barriers.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.1): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.1 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.1 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 2026-11-12). 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 every mission impact level.CISA BOD 26-04: 60 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 every mission impact level.
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (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)60 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 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