In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
net: dsa: felix: suppress non-changes to the tagging protocol
The way in which dsa_tree_change_tag_proto() works is that when
dsa_tree_notify() fails, it doesn't know whether the operation failed
mid way in a multi-switch tree, or it failed for a single-switch tree.
So even though drivers need to fail cleanly in
ds->ops->change_tag_protocol(), DSA will still call dsa_tree_notify()
again, to restore the old tag protocol for potential switches in the
tree where the change did succeeed (before failing for others).
This means for the felix driver that if we report an error in
felix_change_tag_protocol(), we'll get another call where proto_ops ==
old_proto_ops. If we proceed to act upon that, we may do unexpected
things. For example, we will call dsa_tag_8021q_register() twice in a
row, without any dsa_tag_8021q_unregister() in between. Then we will
actually call dsa_tag_8021q_unregister() via old_proto_ops->teardown,
which (if it manages to run at all, after walking through corrupted data
structures) will leave the ports inoperational anyway.
The bug can be readily reproduced if we force an error while in
tag_8021q mode; this crashes the kernel.
echo ocelot-8021q > /sys/class/net/eno2/dsa/tagging
echo edsa > /sys/class/net/eno2/dsa/tagging # -EPROTONOSUPPORT
Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address 0000000000000014
Call trace:
vcap_entry_get+0x24/0x124
ocelot_vcap_filter_del+0x198/0x270
felix_tag_8021q_vlan_del+0xd4/0x21c
dsa_switch_tag_8021q_vlan_del+0x168/0x2cc
dsa_switch_event+0x68/0x1170
dsa_tree_notify+0x14/0x34
dsa_port_tag_8021q_vlan_del+0x84/0x110
dsa_tag_8021q_unregister+0x15c/0x1c0
felix_tag_8021q_teardown+0x16c/0x180
felix_change_tag_protocol+0x1bc/0x230
dsa_switch_event+0x14c/0x1170
dsa_tree_change_tag_proto+0x118/0x1c0
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