In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ipv6: release nexthop on device removal
The CI is hitting some aperiodic hangup at device removal time in the
pmtu.sh self-test:
unregister_netdevice: waiting for veth_A-R1 to become free. Usage count = 6
ref_tracker: veth_A-R1@ffff888013df15d8 has 1/5 users at
dst_init+0x84/0x4a0
dst_alloc+0x97/0x150
ip6_dst_alloc+0x23/0x90
ip6_rt_pcpu_alloc+0x1e6/0x520
ip6_pol_route+0x56f/0x840
fib6_rule_lookup+0x334/0x630
ip6_route_output_flags+0x259/0x480
ip6_dst_lookup_tail.constprop.0+0x5c2/0x940
ip6_dst_lookup_flow+0x88/0x190
udp_tunnel6_dst_lookup+0x2a7/0x4c0
vxlan_xmit_one+0xbde/0x4a50 [vxlan]
vxlan_xmit+0x9ad/0xf20 [vxlan]
dev_hard_start_xmit+0x10e/0x360
__dev_queue_xmit+0xf95/0x18c0
arp_solicit+0x4a2/0xe00
neigh_probe+0xaa/0xf0
While the first suspect is the dst_cache, explicitly tracking the dst
owing the last device reference via probes proved such dst is held by
the nexthop in the originating fib6_info.
Similar to commit f5b51fe804ec ("ipv6: route: purge exception on
removal"), we need to explicitly release the originating fib info when
disconnecting a to-be-removed device from a live ipv6 dst: move the
fib6_info cleanup into ip6_dst_ifdown().
Tested running:
./pmtu.sh cleanup_ipv6_exception
in a tight loop for more than 400 iterations with no spat, running an
unpatched kernel I observed a splat every ~10 iterations.
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