In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
virtio_net: fix xdp_rxq_info bug after suspend/resume
The following sequence currently causes a driver bug warning
when using virtio_net:
# ip link set eth0 up
# echo mem > /sys/power/state (or e.g. # rtcwake -s 10 -m mem)
# ip link set eth0 down
Missing register, driver bug
WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 375 at net/core/xdp.c:138 xdp_rxq_info_unreg+0x58/0x60
Call trace:
xdp_rxq_info_unreg+0x58/0x60
virtnet_close+0x58/0xac
__dev_close_many+0xac/0x140
__dev_change_flags+0xd8/0x210
dev_change_flags+0x24/0x64
do_setlink+0x230/0xdd0
...
This happens because virtnet_freeze() frees the receive_queue
completely (including struct xdp_rxq_info) but does not call
xdp_rxq_info_unreg(). Similarly, virtnet_restore() sets up the
receive_queue again but does not call xdp_rxq_info_reg().
Actually, parts of virtnet_freeze_down() and virtnet_restore_up()
are almost identical to virtnet_close() and virtnet_open(): only
the calls to xdp_rxq_info_(un)reg() are missing. This means that
we can fix this easily and avoid such problems in the future by
just calling virtnet_close()/open() from the freeze/restore handlers.
Aside from adding the missing xdp_rxq_info calls the only difference
is that the refill work is only cancelled if netif_running(). However,
this should not make any functional difference since the refill work
should only be active if the network interface is actually up.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.1): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.1 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.1 HIGHCVSS-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 2026-10-27). 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 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