In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
tcp: tcp_rtx_synack() can be called from process context
Laurent reported the enclosed report [1]
This bug triggers with following coditions:
0) Kernel built with CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT=y
1) A new passive FastOpen TCP socket is created.
This FO socket waits for an ACK coming from client to be a complete
ESTABLISHED one.
2) A socket operation on this socket goes through lock_sock()
release_sock() dance.
3) While the socket is owned by the user in step 2),
a retransmit of the SYN is received and stored in socket backlog.
4) At release_sock() time, the socket backlog is processed while
in process context.
5) A SYNACK packet is cooked in response of the SYN retransmit.
6) -> tcp_rtx_synack() is called in process context.
Before blamed commit, tcp_rtx_synack() was always called from BH handler,
from a timer handler.
Fix this by using TCP_INC_STATS() & NET_INC_STATS()
which do not assume caller is in non preemptible context.
[1]
BUG: using __this_cpu_add() in preemptible [00000000] code: epollpep/2180
caller is tcp_rtx_synack.part.0+0x36/0xc0
CPU: 10 PID: 2180 Comm: epollpep Tainted: G OE 5.16.0-0.bpo.4-amd64 #1 Debian 5.16.12-1~bpo11+1
Hardware name: Supermicro SYS-5039MC-H8TRF/X11SCD-F, BIOS 1.7 11/23/2021
Call Trace:
dump_stack_lvl+0x48/0x5e
check_preemption_disabled+0xde/0xe0
tcp_rtx_synack.part.0+0x36/0xc0
tcp_rtx_synack+0x8d/0xa0
? kmem_cache_alloc+0x2e0/0x3e0
? apparmor_file_alloc_security+0x3b/0x1f0
inet_rtx_syn_ack+0x16/0x30
tcp_check_req+0x367/0x610
tcp_rcv_state_process+0x91/0xf60
? get_nohz_timer_target+0x18/0x1a0
? lock_timer_base+0x61/0x80
? preempt_count_add+0x68/0xa0
tcp_v4_do_rcv+0xbd/0x270
__release_sock+0x6d/0xb0
release_sock+0x2b/0x90
sock_setsockopt+0x138/0x1140
? __sys_getsockname+0x7e/0xc0
? aa_sk_perm+0x3e/0x1a0
__sys_setsockopt+0x198/0x1e0
__x64_sys_setsockopt+0x21/0x30
do_syscall_64+0x38/0xc0
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
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