In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
RDMA/cma: Ensure rdma_addr_cancel() happens before issuing more requests
The FSM can run in a circle allowing rdma_resolve_ip() to be called twice
on the same id_priv. While this cannot happen without going through the
work, it violates the invariant that the same address resolution
background request cannot be active twice.
CPU 1 CPU 2
rdma_resolve_addr():
RDMA_CM_IDLE -> RDMA_CM_ADDR_QUERY
rdma_resolve_ip(addr_handler) #1
process_one_req(): for #1
addr_handler():
RDMA_CM_ADDR_QUERY -> RDMA_CM_ADDR_BOUND
mutex_unlock(&id_priv->handler_mutex);
[.. handler still running ..]
rdma_resolve_addr():
RDMA_CM_ADDR_BOUND -> RDMA_CM_ADDR_QUERY
rdma_resolve_ip(addr_handler)
!! two requests are now on the req_list
rdma_destroy_id():
destroy_id_handler_unlock():
_destroy_id():
cma_cancel_operation():
rdma_addr_cancel()
// process_one_req() self removes it
spin_lock_bh(&lock);
cancel_delayed_work(&req->work);
if (!list_empty(&req->list)) == true
! rdma_addr_cancel() returns after process_on_req #1 is done
kfree(id_priv)
process_one_req(): for #2
addr_handler():
mutex_lock(&id_priv->handler_mutex);
!! Use after free on id_priv
rdma_addr_cancel() expects there to be one req on the list and only
cancels the first one. The self-removal behavior of the work only happens
after the handler has returned. This yields a situations where the
req_list can have two reqs for the same "handle" but rdma_addr_cancel()
only cancels the first one.
The second req remains active beyond rdma_destroy_id() and will
use-after-free id_priv once it inevitably triggers.
Fix this by remembering if the id_priv has called rdma_resolve_ip() and
always cancel before calling it again. This ensures the req_list never
gets more than one item in it and doesn't cost anything in the normal flow
that never uses this strange error path.
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