In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
bpf: Fix too early release of tcx_entry
Pedro Pinto and later independently also Hyunwoo Kim and Wongi Lee reported
an issue that the tcx_entry can be released too early leading to a use
after free (UAF) when an active old-style ingress or clsact qdisc with a
shared tc block is later replaced by another ingress or clsact instance.
Essentially, the sequence to trigger the UAF (one example) can be as follows:
- A network namespace is created
- An ingress qdisc is created. This allocates a tcx_entry, and
&tcx_entry->miniq is stored in the qdisc's miniqp->p_miniq. At the
same time, a tcf block with index 1 is created.
- chain0 is attached to the tcf block. chain0 must be connected to
the block linked to the ingress qdisc to later reach the function
tcf_chain0_head_change_cb_del() which triggers the UAF.
- Create and graft a clsact qdisc. This causes the ingress qdisc
created in step 1 to be removed, thus freeing the previously linked
tcx_entry:
rtnetlink_rcv_msg()
=> tc_modify_qdisc()
=> qdisc_create()
=> clsact_init() [a]
=> qdisc_graft()
=> qdisc_destroy()
=> __qdisc_destroy()
=> ingress_destroy() [b]
=> tcx_entry_free()
=> kfree_rcu() // tcx_entry freed
- Finally, the network namespace is closed. This registers the
cleanup_net worker, and during the process of releasing the
remaining clsact qdisc, it accesses the tcx_entry that was
already freed in step 4, causing the UAF to occur:
cleanup_net()
=> ops_exit_list()
=> default_device_exit_batch()
=> unregister_netdevice_many()
=> unregister_netdevice_many_notify()
=> dev_shutdown()
=> qdisc_put()
=> clsact_destroy() [c]
=> tcf_block_put_ext()
=> tcf_chain0_head_change_cb_del()
=> tcf_chain_head_change_item()
=> clsact_chain_head_change()
=> mini_qdisc_pair_swap() // UAF
There are also other variants, the gist is to add an ingress (or clsact)
qdisc with a specific shared block, then to replace that qdisc, waiting
for the tcx_entry kfree_rcu() to be executed and subsequently accessing
the current active qdisc's miniq one way or another.
The correct fix is to turn the miniq_active boolean into a counter. What
can be observed, at step 2 above, the counter transitions from 0->1, at
step [a] from 1->2 (in order for the miniq object to remain active during
the replacement), then in [b] from 2->1 and finally [c] 1->0 with the
eventual release. The reference counter in general ranges from [0,2] and
it does not need to be atomic since all access to the counter is protected
by the rtnl mutex. With this in place, there is no longer a UAF happening
and the tcx_entry is freed at the correct time.
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
- 0.4% 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