In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
net: fix udp gso skb_segment after pull from frag_list
Commit a1e40ac5b5e9 ("net: gso: fix udp gso fraglist segmentation after
pull from frag_list") detected invalid geometry in frag_list skbs and
redirects them from skb_segment_list to more robust skb_segment. But some
packets with modified geometry can also hit bugs in that code. We don't
know how many such cases exist. Addressing each one by one also requires
touching the complex skb_segment code, which risks introducing bugs for
other types of skbs. Instead, linearize all these packets that fail the
basic invariants on gso fraglist skbs. That is more robust.
If only part of the fraglist payload is pulled into head_skb, it will
always cause exception when splitting skbs by skb_segment. For detailed
call stack information, see below.
Valid SKB_GSO_FRAGLIST skbs
- consist of two or more segments
- the head_skb holds the protocol headers plus first gso_size
- one or more frag_list skbs hold exactly one segment
- all but the last must be gso_size
Optional datapath hooks such as NAT and BPF (bpf_skb_pull_data) can
modify fraglist skbs, breaking these invariants.
In extreme cases they pull one part of data into skb linear. For UDP,
this causes three payloads with lengths of (11,11,10) bytes were
pulled tail to become (12,10,10) bytes.
The skbs no longer meets the above SKB_GSO_FRAGLIST conditions because
payload was pulled into head_skb, it needs to be linearized before pass
to regular skb_segment.
skb_segment+0xcd0/0xd14
__udp_gso_segment+0x334/0x5f4
udp4_ufo_fragment+0x118/0x15c
inet_gso_segment+0x164/0x338
skb_mac_gso_segment+0xc4/0x13c
__skb_gso_segment+0xc4/0x124
validate_xmit_skb+0x9c/0x2c0
validate_xmit_skb_list+0x4c/0x80
sch_direct_xmit+0x70/0x404
__dev_queue_xmit+0x64c/0xe5c
neigh_resolve_output+0x178/0x1c4
ip_finish_output2+0x37c/0x47c
__ip_finish_output+0x194/0x240
ip_finish_output+0x20/0xf4
ip_output+0x100/0x1a0
NF_HOOK+0xc4/0x16c
ip_forward+0x314/0x32c
ip_rcv+0x90/0x118
__netif_receive_skb+0x74/0x124
process_backlog+0xe8/0x1a4
__napi_poll+0x5c/0x1f8
net_rx_action+0x154/0x314
handle_softirqs+0x154/0x4b8
[118.376811] [C201134] rxq0_pus: [name:bug&]kernel BUG at net/core/skbuff.c:4278!
[118.376829] [C201134] rxq0_pus: [name:traps&]Internal error: Oops - BUG: 00000000f2000800 [#1] PREEMPT SMP
[118.470774] [C201134] rxq0_pus: [name:mrdump&]Kernel Offset: 0x178cc00000 from 0xffffffc008000000
[118.470810] [C201134] rxq0_pus: [name:mrdump&]PHYS_OFFSET: 0x40000000
[118.470827] [C201134] rxq0_pus: [name:mrdump&]pstate: 60400005 (nZCv daif +PAN -UAO)
[118.470848] [C201134] rxq0_pus: [name:mrdump&]pc : [0xffffffd79598aefc] skb_segment+0xcd0/0xd14
[118.470900] [C201134] rxq0_pus: [name:mrdump&]lr : [0xffffffd79598a5e8] skb_segment+0x3bc/0xd14
[118.470928] [C201134] rxq0_pus: [name:mrdump&]sp : ffffffc008013770
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
- 0.5% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-24). 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