In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
rxrpc: Fix locking in rxrpc's sendmsg
Fix three bugs in the rxrpc's sendmsg implementation:
(1) rxrpc_new_client_call() should release the socket lock when returning
an error from rxrpc_get_call_slot().
(2) rxrpc_wait_for_tx_window_intr() will return without the call mutex
held in the event that we're interrupted by a signal whilst waiting
for tx space on the socket or relocking the call mutex afterwards.
Fix this by: (a) moving the unlock/lock of the call mutex up to
rxrpc_send_data() such that the lock is not held around all of
rxrpc_wait_for_tx_window*() and (b) indicating to higher callers
whether we're return with the lock dropped. Note that this means
recvmsg() will not block on this call whilst we're waiting.
(3) After dropping and regaining the call mutex, rxrpc_send_data() needs
to go and recheck the state of the tx_pending buffer and the
tx_total_len check in case we raced with another sendmsg() on the same
call.
Thinking on this some more, it might make sense to have different locks for
sendmsg() and recvmsg(). There's probably no need to make recvmsg() wait
for sendmsg(). It does mean that recvmsg() can return MSG_EOR indicating
that a call is dead before a sendmsg() to that call returns - but that can
currently happen anyway.
Without fix (2), something like the following can be induced:
WARNING: bad unlock balance detected!
5.16.0-rc6-syzkaller #0 Not tainted
-------------------------------------
syz-executor011/3597 is trying to release lock (&call->user_mutex) at:
[] rxrpc_do_sendmsg+0xc13/0x1350 net/rxrpc/sendmsg.c:748
but there are no more locks to release!
other info that might help us debug this:
no locks held by syz-executor011/3597.
...
Call Trace:
__dump_stack lib/dump_stack.c:88 [inline]
dump_stack_lvl+0xcd/0x134 lib/dump_stack.c:106
print_unlock_imbalance_bug include/trace/events/lock.h:58 [inline]
__lock_release kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5306 [inline]
lock_release.cold+0x49/0x4e kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5657
__mutex_unlock_slowpath+0x99/0x5e0 kernel/locking/mutex.c:900
rxrpc_do_sendmsg+0xc13/0x1350 net/rxrpc/sendmsg.c:748
rxrpc_sendmsg+0x420/0x630 net/rxrpc/af_rxrpc.c:561
sock_sendmsg_nosec net/socket.c:704 [inline]
sock_sendmsg+0xcf/0x120 net/socket.c:724
____sys_sendmsg+0x6e8/0x810 net/socket.c:2409
___sys_sendmsg+0xf3/0x170 net/socket.c:2463
__sys_sendmsg+0xe5/0x1b0 net/socket.c:2492
do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:50 [inline]
do_syscall_64+0x35/0xb0 arch/x86/entry/common.c:80
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
[Thanks to Hawkins Jiawei and Khalid Masum for their attempts to fix this]
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
- 0.2% 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