In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
net: dsa: clean up FDB, MDB, VLAN entries on unbind
As explained in many places such as commit b117e1e8a86d ("net: dsa:
delete dsa_legacy_fdb_add and dsa_legacy_fdb_del"), DSA is written given
the assumption that higher layers have balanced additions/deletions.
As such, it only makes sense to be extremely vocal when those
assumptions are violated and the driver unbinds with entries still
present.
But Ido Schimmel points out a very simple situation where that is wrong:
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/ZDazSM5UsPPjQuKr@shredder/
(also briefly discussed by me in the aforementioned commit).
Basically, while the bridge bypass operations are not something that DSA
explicitly documents, and for the majority of DSA drivers this API
simply causes them to go to promiscuous mode, that isn't the case for
all drivers. Some have the necessary requirements for bridge bypass
operations to do something useful - see dsa_switch_supports_uc_filtering().
Although in tools/testing/selftests/net/forwarding/local_termination.sh,
we made an effort to popularize better mechanisms to manage address
filters on DSA interfaces from user space - namely macvlan for unicast,
and setsockopt(IP_ADD_MEMBERSHIP) - through mtools - for multicast, the
fact is that 'bridge fdb add ... self static local' also exists as
kernel UAPI, and might be useful to someone, even if only for a quick
hack.
It seems counter-productive to block that path by implementing shim
.ndo_fdb_add and .ndo_fdb_del operations which just return -EOPNOTSUPP
in order to prevent the ndo_dflt_fdb_add() and ndo_dflt_fdb_del() from
running, although we could do that.
Accepting that cleanup is necessary seems to be the only option.
Especially since we appear to be coming back at this from a different
angle as well. Russell King is noticing that the WARN_ON() triggers even
for VLANs:
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/Z_li8Bj8bD4-BYKQ@shell.armlinux.org.uk/
What happens in the bug report above is that dsa_port_do_vlan_del() fails,
then the VLAN entry lingers on, and then we warn on unbind and leak it.
This is not a straight revert of the blamed commit, but we now add an
informational print to the kernel log (to still have a way to see
that bugs exist), and some extra comments gathered from past years'
experience, to justify the logic.
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 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