In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
bpf: Fix racing between bpf_timer_cancel_and_free and bpf_timer_cancel
The following race is possible between bpf_timer_cancel_and_free
and bpf_timer_cancel. It will lead a UAF on the timer->timer.
bpf_timer_cancel();
spin_lock();
t = timer->time;
spin_unlock();
bpf_timer_cancel_and_free();
spin_lock();
t = timer->timer;
timer->timer = NULL;
spin_unlock();
hrtimer_cancel(&t->timer);
kfree(t);
/* UAF on t */
hrtimer_cancel(&t->timer);
In bpf_timer_cancel_and_free, this patch frees the timer->timer
after a rcu grace period. This requires a rcu_head addition
to the "struct bpf_hrtimer". Another kfree(t) happens in bpf_timer_init,
this does not need a kfree_rcu because it is still under the
spin_lock and timer->timer has not been visible by others yet.
In bpf_timer_cancel, rcu_read_lock() is added because this helper
can be used in a non rcu critical section context (e.g. from
a sleepable bpf prog). Other timer->timer usages in helpers.c
have been audited, bpf_timer_cancel() is the only place where
timer->timer is used outside of the spin_lock.
Another solution considered is to mark a t->flag in bpf_timer_cancel
and clear it after hrtimer_cancel() is done. In bpf_timer_cancel_and_free,
it busy waits for the flag to be cleared before kfree(t). This patch
goes with a straight forward solution and frees timer->timer after
a rcu grace period.
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 every mission impact level.CISA BOD 26-04: 60 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 every mission impact level.
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (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)60 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 Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). 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