In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
net: fix memory leak in skb_segment_list for GRO packets
When skb_segment_list() is called during packet forwarding, it handles
packets that were aggregated by the GRO engine.
Historically, the segmentation logic in skb_segment_list assumes that
individual segments are split from a parent SKB and may need to carry
their own socket memory accounting. Accordingly, the code transfers
truesize from the parent to the newly created segments.
Prior to commit ed4cccef64c1 ("gro: fix ownership transfer"), this
truesize subtraction in skb_segment_list() was valid because fragments
still carry a reference to the original socket.
However, commit ed4cccef64c1 ("gro: fix ownership transfer") changed
this behavior by ensuring that fraglist entries are explicitly
orphaned (skb->sk = NULL) to prevent illegal orphaning later in the
stack. This change meant that the entire socket memory charge remained
with the head SKB, but the corresponding accounting logic in
skb_segment_list() was never updated.
As a result, the current code unconditionally adds each fragment's
truesize to delta_truesize and subtracts it from the parent SKB. Since
the fragments are no longer charged to the socket, this subtraction
results in an effective under-count of memory when the head is freed.
This causes sk_wmem_alloc to remain non-zero, preventing socket
destruction and leading to a persistent memory leak.
The leak can be observed via KMEMLEAK when tearing down the networking
environment:
unreferenced object 0xffff8881e6eb9100 (size 2048):
comm "ping", pid 6720, jiffies 4295492526
backtrace:
kmem_cache_alloc_noprof+0x5c6/0x800
sk_prot_alloc+0x5b/0x220
sk_alloc+0x35/0xa00
inet6_create.part.0+0x303/0x10d0
__sock_create+0x248/0x640
__sys_socket+0x11b/0x1d0
Since skb_segment_list() is exclusively used for SKB_GSO_FRAGLIST
packets constructed by GRO, the truesize adjustment is removed.
The call to skb_release_head_state() must be preserved. As documented in
commit cf673ed0e057 ("net: fix fraglist segmentation reference count
leak"), it is still required to correctly drop references to SKB
extensions that may be overwritten during __copy_skb_header().
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