In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
net/mlx5e: RX, Fix generating skb from non-linear xdp_buff for striding RQ
XDP programs can change the layout of an xdp_buff through
bpf_xdp_adjust_tail() and bpf_xdp_adjust_head(). Therefore, the driver
cannot assume the size of the linear data area nor fragments. Fix the
bug in mlx5 by generating skb according to xdp_buff after XDP programs
run.
Currently, when handling multi-buf XDP, the mlx5 driver assumes the
layout of an xdp_buff to be unchanged. That is, the linear data area
continues to be empty and fragments remain the same. This may cause
the driver to generate erroneous skb or triggering a kernel
warning. When an XDP program added linear data through
bpf_xdp_adjust_head(), the linear data will be ignored as
mlx5e_build_linear_skb() builds an skb without linear data and then
pull data from fragments to fill the linear data area. When an XDP
program has shrunk the non-linear data through bpf_xdp_adjust_tail(),
the delta passed to __pskb_pull_tail() may exceed the actual nonlinear
data size and trigger the BUG_ON in it.
To fix the issue, first record the original number of fragments. If the
number of fragments changes after the XDP program runs, rewind the end
fragment pointer by the difference and recalculate the truesize. Then,
build the skb with the linear data area matching the xdp_buff. Finally,
only pull data in if there is non-linear data and fill the linear part
up to 256 bytes.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (9.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 9.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 9.8 CRITICALCVSS-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 2026-11-01). 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