In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
net/mlx5e: Fix deadlock in tc route query code
Cited commit causes ABBA deadlock[0] when peer flows are created while
holding the devcom rw semaphore. Due to peer flows offload implementation
the lock is taken much higher up the call chain and there is no obvious way
to easily fix the deadlock. Instead, since tc route query code needs the
peer eswitch structure only to perform a lookup in xarray and doesn't
perform any sleeping operations with it, refactor the code for lockless
execution in following ways:
- RCUify the devcom 'data' pointer. When resetting the pointer
synchronously wait for RCU grace period before returning. This is fine
since devcom is currently only used for synchronization of
pairing/unpairing of eswitches which is rare and already expensive as-is.
- Wrap all usages of 'paired' boolean in {READ|WRITE}_ONCE(). The flag has
already been used in some unlocked contexts without proper
annotations (e.g. users of mlx5_devcom_is_paired() function), but it wasn't
an issue since all relevant code paths checked it again after obtaining the
devcom semaphore. Now it is also used by mlx5_devcom_get_peer_data_rcu() as
"best effort" check to return NULL when devcom is being unpaired. Note that
while RCU read lock doesn't prevent the unpaired flag from being changed
concurrently it still guarantees that reader can continue to use 'data'.
- Refactor mlx5e_tc_query_route_vport() function to use new
mlx5_devcom_get_peer_data_rcu() API which fixes the deadlock.
[0]:
[ 164.599612] ======================================================
[ 164.600142] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
[ 164.600667] 6.3.0-rc3+ #1 Not tainted
[ 164.601021] ------------------------------------------------------
[ 164.601557] handler1/3456 is trying to acquire lock:
[ 164.601998] ffff88811f1714b0 (&esw->offloads.encap_tbl_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: mlx5e_attach_encap+0xd8/0x8b0 [mlx5_core]
[ 164.603078]
but task is already holding lock:
[ 164.603617] ffff88810137fc98 (&comp->sem){++++}-{3:3}, at: mlx5_devcom_get_peer_data+0x37/0x80 [mlx5_core]
[ 164.604459]
which lock already depends on the new lock.
[ 164.605190]
the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
[ 164.605848]
-> #1 (&comp->sem){++++}-{3:3}:
[ 164.606380] down_read+0x39/0x50
[ 164.606772] mlx5_devcom_get_peer_data+0x37/0x80 [mlx5_core]
[ 164.607336] mlx5e_tc_query_route_vport+0x86/0xc0 [mlx5_core]
[ 164.607914] mlx5e_tc_tun_route_lookup+0x1a4/0x1d0 [mlx5_core]
[ 164.608495] mlx5e_attach_decap_route+0xc6/0x1e0 [mlx5_core]
[ 164.609063] mlx5e_tc_add_fdb_flow+0x1ea/0x360 [mlx5_core]
[ 164.609627] __mlx5e_add_fdb_flow+0x2d2/0x430 [mlx5_core]
[ 164.610175] mlx5e_configure_flower+0x952/0x1a20 [mlx5_core]
[ 164.610741] tc_setup_cb_add+0xd4/0x200
[ 164.611146] fl_hw_replace_filter+0x14c/0x1f0 [cls_flower]
[ 164.611661] fl_change+0xc95/0x18a0 [cls_flower]
[ 164.612116] tc_new_tfilter+0x3fc/0xd20
[ 164.612516] rtnetlink_rcv_msg+0x418/0x5b0
[ 164.612936] netlink_rcv_skb+0x54/0x100
[ 164.613339] netlink_unicast+0x190/0x250
[ 164.613746] netlink_sendmsg+0x245/0x4a0
[ 164.614150] sock_sendmsg+0x38/0x60
[ 164.614522] ____sys_sendmsg+0x1d0/0x1e0
[ 164.614934] ___sys_sendmsg+0x80/0xc0
[ 164.615320] __sys_sendmsg+0x51/0x90
[ 164.615701] do_syscall_64+0x3d/0x90
[ 164.616083] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x46/0xb0
[ 164.616568]
-> #0 (&esw->offloads.encap_tbl_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}:
[ 164.617210] __lock_acquire+0x159e/0x26e0
[ 164.617638] lock_acquire+0xc2/0x2a0
[ 164.618018] __mutex_lock+0x92/0xcd0
[ 164.618401] mlx5e_attach_encap+0xd8/0x8b0 [mlx5_core]
[ 164.618943] post_process_attr+0x153/0x2d0 [
---truncated---
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
- 0.1% 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