In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
net/mlx5e: Avoid field-overflowing memcpy()
In preparation for FORTIFY_SOURCE performing compile-time and run-time
field bounds checking for memcpy(), memmove(), and memset(), avoid
intentionally writing across neighboring fields.
Use flexible arrays instead of zero-element arrays (which look like they
are always overflowing) and split the cross-field memcpy() into two halves
that can be appropriately bounds-checked by the compiler.
We were doing:
#define ETH_HLEN 14
#define VLAN_HLEN 4
...
#define MLX5E_XDP_MIN_INLINE (ETH_HLEN + VLAN_HLEN)
...
struct mlx5e_tx_wqe *wqe = mlx5_wq_cyc_get_wqe(wq, pi);
...
struct mlx5_wqe_eth_seg *eseg = &wqe->eth;
struct mlx5_wqe_data_seg *dseg = wqe->data;
...
memcpy(eseg->inline_hdr.start, xdptxd->data, MLX5E_XDP_MIN_INLINE);
target is wqe->eth.inline_hdr.start (which the compiler sees as being
2 bytes in size), but copying 18, intending to write across start
(really vlan_tci, 2 bytes). The remaining 16 bytes get written into
wqe->data[0], covering byte_count (4 bytes), lkey (4 bytes), and addr
(8 bytes).
struct mlx5e_tx_wqe {
struct mlx5_wqe_ctrl_seg ctrl; /* 0 16 */
struct mlx5_wqe_eth_seg eth; /* 16 16 */
struct mlx5_wqe_data_seg data[]; /* 32 0 */
/* size: 32, cachelines: 1, members: 3 */
/* last cacheline: 32 bytes */
};
struct mlx5_wqe_eth_seg {
u8 swp_outer_l4_offset; /* 0 1 */
u8 swp_outer_l3_offset; /* 1 1 */
u8 swp_inner_l4_offset; /* 2 1 */
u8 swp_inner_l3_offset; /* 3 1 */
u8 cs_flags; /* 4 1 */
u8 swp_flags; /* 5 1 */
__be16 mss; /* 6 2 */
__be32 flow_table_metadata; /* 8 4 */
union {
struct {
__be16 sz; /* 12 2 */
u8 start[2]; /* 14 2 */
} inline_hdr; /* 12 4 */
struct {
__be16 type; /* 12 2 */
__be16 vlan_tci; /* 14 2 */
} insert; /* 12 4 */
__be32 trailer; /* 12 4 */
}; /* 12 4 */
/* size: 16, cachelines: 1, members: 9 */
/* last cacheline: 16 bytes */
};
struct mlx5_wqe_data_seg {
__be32 byte_count; /* 0 4 */
__be32 lkey; /* 4 4 */
__be64 addr; /* 8 8 */
/* size: 16, cachelines: 1, members: 3 */
/* last cacheline: 16 bytes */
};
So, split the memcpy() so the compiler can reason about the buffer
sizes.
"pahole" shows no size nor member offset changes to struct mlx5e_tx_wqe
nor struct mlx5e_umr_wqe. "objdump -d" shows no meaningful object
code changes (i.e. only source line number induced differences and
optimizations).
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
- 0.6% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-28). 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