In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
pfifo_tail_enqueue: Drop new packet when sch->limit == 0
Expected behaviour:
In case we reach scheduler's limit, pfifo_tail_enqueue() will drop a
packet in scheduler's queue and decrease scheduler's qlen by one.
Then, pfifo_tail_enqueue() enqueue new packet and increase
scheduler's qlen by one. Finally, pfifo_tail_enqueue() return
NET_XMIT_CN status code.
Weird behaviour:
In case we set sch->limit == 0 and trigger pfifo_tail_enqueue() on a
scheduler that has no packet, the 'drop a packet' step will do nothing.
This means the scheduler's qlen still has value equal 0.
Then, we continue to enqueue new packet and increase scheduler's qlen by
one. In summary, we can leverage pfifo_tail_enqueue() to increase qlen by
one and return NET_XMIT_CN status code.
The problem is:
Let's say we have two qdiscs: Qdisc_A and Qdisc_B.
- Qdisc_A's type must have '->graft()' function to create parent/child relationship.
Let's say Qdisc_A's type is
hfsc. Enqueue packet to this qdisc will trigger
hfsc_enqueue.
- Qdisc_B's type is pfifo_head_drop. Enqueue packet to this qdisc will trigger
pfifo_tail_enqueue.
- Qdisc_B is configured to have
sch->limit == 0.
- Qdisc_A is configured to route the enqueued's packet to Qdisc_B.
Enqueue packet through Qdisc_A will lead to:
- hfsc_enqueue(Qdisc_A) -> pfifo_tail_enqueue(Qdisc_B)
- Qdisc_B->q.qlen += 1
- pfifo_tail_enqueue() return
NET_XMIT_CN
- hfsc_enqueue() check for
NET_XMIT_SUCCESS and see NET_XMIT_CN => hfsc_enqueue() don't increase qlen of Qdisc_A.
The whole process lead to a situation where Qdisc_A->q.qlen == 0 and Qdisc_B->q.qlen == 1.
Replace 'hfsc' with other type (for example: 'drr') still lead to the same problem.
This violate the design where parent's qlen should equal to the sum of its childrens'qlen.
Bug impact: This issue can be used for user->kernel privilege escalation when it is reachable.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.0): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.0 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.0 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 2026-10-29). 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