In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
net: nfc: fix deadlock between nfc_unregister_device and rfkill_fop_write
A deadlock can occur between nfc_unregister_device() and rfkill_fop_write()
due to lock ordering inversion between device_lock and rfkill_global_mutex.
The problematic lock order is:
Thread A (rfkill_fop_write):
rfkill_fop_write()
mutex_lock(&rfkill_global_mutex)
rfkill_set_block()
nfc_rfkill_set_block()
nfc_dev_down()
device_lock(&dev->dev) <- waits for device_lock
Thread B (nfc_unregister_device):
nfc_unregister_device()
device_lock(&dev->dev)
rfkill_unregister()
mutex_lock(&rfkill_global_mutex) <- waits for rfkill_global_mutex
This creates a classic ABBA deadlock scenario.
Fix this by moving rfkill_unregister() and rfkill_destroy() outside the
device_lock critical section. Store the rfkill pointer in a local variable
before releasing the lock, then call rfkill_unregister() after releasing
device_lock.
This change is safe because rfkill_fop_write() holds rfkill_global_mutex
while calling the rfkill callbacks, and rfkill_unregister() also acquires
rfkill_global_mutex before cleanup. Therefore, rfkill_unregister() will
wait for any ongoing callback to complete before proceeding, and
device_del() is only called after rfkill_unregister() returns, preventing
any use-after-free.
The similar lock ordering in nfc_register_device() (device_lock ->
rfkill_global_mutex via rfkill_register) is safe because during
registration the device is not yet in rfkill_list, so no concurrent
rfkill operations can occur on this device.
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 2026-11-09). 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