In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
bpf, sockmap: Fix more uncharged while msg has more_data
In tcp_bpf_send_verdict(), if msg has more data after
tcp_bpf_sendmsg_redir():
tcp_bpf_send_verdict()
tosend = msg->sg.size //msg->sg.size = 22220
case __SK_REDIRECT:
sk_msg_return() //uncharged msg->sg.size(22220) sk->sk_forward_alloc
tcp_bpf_sendmsg_redir() //after tcp_bpf_sendmsg_redir, msg->sg.size=11000
goto more_data;
tosend = msg->sg.size //msg->sg.size = 11000
case __SK_REDIRECT:
sk_msg_return() //uncharged msg->sg.size(11000) to sk->sk_forward_alloc
The msg->sg.size(11000) has been uncharged twice, to fix we can charge the
remaining msg->sg.size before goto more data.
This issue can cause the following info:
WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 9860 at net/core/stream.c:208 sk_stream_kill_queues+0xd4/0x1a0
Call Trace:
inet_csk_destroy_sock+0x55/0x110
__tcp_close+0x279/0x470
tcp_close+0x1f/0x60
inet_release+0x3f/0x80
__sock_release+0x3d/0xb0
sock_close+0x11/0x20
__fput+0x92/0x250
task_work_run+0x6a/0xa0
do_exit+0x33b/0xb60
do_group_exit+0x2f/0xa0
get_signal+0xb6/0x950
arch_do_signal_or_restart+0xac/0x2a0
? vfs_write+0x237/0x290
exit_to_user_mode_prepare+0xa9/0x200
syscall_exit_to_user_mode+0x12/0x30
do_syscall_64+0x46/0x80
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 2136 at net/ipv4/af_inet.c:155 inet_sock_destruct+0x13c/0x260
Call Trace:
__sk_destruct+0x24/0x1f0
sk_psock_destroy+0x19b/0x1c0
process_one_work+0x1b3/0x3c0
worker_thread+0x30/0x350
? process_one_work+0x3c0/0x3c0
kthread+0xe6/0x110
? kthread_complete_and_exit+0x20/0x20
ret_from_fork+0x22/0x30
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
- 0.3% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-25). 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