In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
IB/mlx5: Fix initializing CQ fragments buffer
The function init_cq_frag_buf() can be called to initialize the current CQ
fragments buffer cq->buf, or the temporary cq->resize_buf that is filled
during CQ resize operation.
However, the offending commit started to use function get_cqe() for
getting the CQEs, the issue with this change is that get_cqe() always
returns CQEs from cq->buf, which leads us to initialize the wrong buffer,
and in case of enlarging the CQ we try to access elements beyond the size
of the current cq->buf and eventually hit a kernel panic.
[exception RIP: init_cq_frag_buf+103]
[ffff9f799ddcbcd8] mlx5_ib_resize_cq at ffffffffc0835d60 [mlx5_ib]
[ffff9f799ddcbdb0] ib_resize_cq at ffffffffc05270df [ib_core]
[ffff9f799ddcbdc0] llt_rdma_setup_qp at ffffffffc0a6a712 [llt]
[ffff9f799ddcbe10] llt_rdma_cc_event_action at ffffffffc0a6b411 [llt]
[ffff9f799ddcbe98] llt_rdma_client_conn_thread at ffffffffc0a6bb75 [llt]
[ffff9f799ddcbec8] kthread at ffffffffa66c5da1
[ffff9f799ddcbf50] ret_from_fork_nospec_begin at ffffffffa6d95ddd
Fix it by getting the needed CQE by calling mlx5_frag_buf_get_wqe() that
takes the correct source buffer as a parameter.
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 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