In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
net: bridge: fix soft lockup in br_multicast_query_expired()
When set multicast_query_interval to a large value, the local variable
'time' in br_multicast_send_query() may overflow. If the time is smaller
than jiffies, the timer will expire immediately, and then call mod_timer()
again, which creates a loop and may trigger the following soft lockup
issue.
watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#1 stuck for 221s! [rb_consumer:66]
CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 66 Comm: rb_consumer Not tainted 6.16.0+ #259 PREEMPT(none)
Call Trace:
__netdev_alloc_skb+0x2e/0x3a0
br_ip6_multicast_alloc_query+0x212/0x1b70
__br_multicast_send_query+0x376/0xac0
br_multicast_send_query+0x299/0x510
br_multicast_query_expired.constprop.0+0x16d/0x1b0
call_timer_fn+0x3b/0x2a0
__run_timers+0x619/0x950
run_timer_softirq+0x11c/0x220
handle_softirqs+0x18e/0x560
__irq_exit_rcu+0x158/0x1a0
sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x76/0x90
This issue can be reproduced with:
ip link add br0 type bridge
echo 1 > /sys/class/net/br0/bridge/multicast_querier
echo 0xffffffffffffffff >
/sys/class/net/br0/bridge/multicast_query_interval
ip link set dev br0 up
The multicast_startup_query_interval can also cause this issue. Similar to
the commit 99b40610956a ("net: bridge: mcast: add and enforce query
interval minimum"), add check for the query interval maximum to fix this
issue.
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
- 0.1% 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