In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
tcp_bpf: Fix the sk_mem_uncharge logic in tcp_bpf_sendmsg
The current sk memory accounting logic in __SK_REDIRECT is pre-uncharging
tosend bytes, which is either msg->sg.size or a smaller value apply_bytes.
Potential problems with this strategy are as follows:
- If the actual sent bytes are smaller than tosend, we need to charge some
bytes back, as in line 487, which is okay but seems not clean.
- When tosend is set to apply_bytes, as in line 417, and (ret < 0), we may
miss uncharging (msg->sg.size - apply_bytes) bytes.
[...]
415 tosend = msg->sg.size;
416 if (psock->apply_bytes && psock->apply_bytes < tosend)
417 tosend = psock->apply_bytes;
[...]
443 sk_msg_return(sk, msg, tosend);
444 release_sock(sk);
446 origsize = msg->sg.size;
447 ret = tcp_bpf_sendmsg_redir(sk_redir, redir_ingress,
448 msg, tosend, flags);
449 sent = origsize - msg->sg.size;
[...]
454 lock_sock(sk);
455 if (unlikely(ret < 0)) {
456 int free = sk_msg_free_nocharge(sk, msg);
458 if (!cork)
459 *copied -= free;
460 }
[...]
487 if (eval == __SK_REDIRECT)
488 sk_mem_charge(sk, tosend - sent);
[...]
When running the selftest test_txmsg_redir_wait_sndmem with txmsg_apply,
the following warning will be reported:
------------[ cut here ]------------
WARNING: CPU: 6 PID: 57 at net/ipv4/af_inet.c:156 inet_sock_destruct+0x190/0x1a0
Modules linked in:
CPU: 6 UID: 0 PID: 57 Comm: kworker/6:0 Not tainted 6.12.0-rc1.bm.1-amd64+ #43
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.12.0-1 04/01/2014
Workqueue: events sk_psock_destroy
RIP: 0010:inet_sock_destruct+0x190/0x1a0
RSP: 0018:ffffad0a8021fe08 EFLAGS: 00010206
RAX: 0000000000000011 RBX: ffff9aab4475b900 RCX: ffff9aab481a0800
RDX: 0000000000000303 RSI: 0000000000000011 RDI: ffff9aab4475b900
RBP: ffff9aab4475b990 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: ffff9aab40050ec0
R10: 0000000000000000 R11: ffff9aae6fdb1d01 R12: ffff9aab49c60400
R13: ffff9aab49c60598 R14: ffff9aab49c60598 R15: dead000000000100
FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff9aae6fd80000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
CR2: 00007ffec7e47bd8 CR3: 00000001a1a1c004 CR4: 0000000000770ef0
DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
PKRU: 55555554
Call Trace:
? __warn+0x89/0x130
? inet_sock_destruct+0x190/0x1a0
? report_bug+0xfc/0x1e0
? handle_bug+0x5c/0xa0
? exc_invalid_op+0x17/0x70
? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x1a/0x20
? inet_sock_destruct+0x190/0x1a0
__sk_destruct+0x25/0x220
sk_psock_destroy+0x2b2/0x310
process_scheduled_works+0xa3/0x3e0
worker_thread+0x117/0x240
? __pfx_worker_thread+0x10/0x10
kthread+0xcf/0x100
? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10
ret_from_fork+0x31/0x40
? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10
ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30
---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]---
In __SK_REDIRECT, a more concise way is delaying the uncharging after sent
bytes are finalized, and uncharge this value. When (ret < 0), we shall
invoke sk_msg_free.
Same thing happens in case __SK_DROP, when tosend is set to apply_bytes,
we may miss uncharging (msg->sg.size - apply_bytes) bytes. The same
warning will be reported in selftest.
[...]
468 case __SK_DROP:
469 default:
470 sk_msg_free_partial(sk, msg, tosend);
471 sk_msg_apply_bytes(psock, tosend);
472 *copied -= (tosend + delta);
473 return -EACCES;
[...]
So instead of sk_msg_free_partial we can do sk_msg_free here.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.8 HIGHCVSS-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 2026-11-02). 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