In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ipv6: Fix ECMP sibling count mismatch when clearing RTF_ADDRCONF
syzbot reported a kernel BUG in fib6_add_rt2node() when adding an IPv6
route. [0]
Commit f72514b3c569 ("ipv6: clear RA flags when adding a static
route") introduced logic to clear RTF_ADDRCONF from existing routes
when a static route with the same nexthop is added. However, this
causes a problem when the existing route has a gateway.
When RTF_ADDRCONF is cleared from a route that has a gateway, that
route becomes eligible for ECMP, i.e. rt6_qualify_for_ecmp() returns
true. The issue is that this route was never added to the
fib6_siblings list.
This leads to a mismatch between the following counts:
- The sibling count computed by iterating fib6_next chain, which
includes the newly ECMP-eligible route
- The actual siblings in fib6_siblings list, which does not include
that route
When a subsequent ECMP route is added, fib6_add_rt2node() hits
BUG_ON(sibling->fib6_nsiblings != rt->fib6_nsiblings) because the
counts don't match.
Fix this by only clearing RTF_ADDRCONF when the existing route does
not have a gateway. Routes without a gateway cannot qualify for ECMP
anyway (rt6_qualify_for_ecmp() requires fib_nh_gw_family), so clearing
RTF_ADDRCONF on them is safe and matches the original intent of the
commit.
[0]:
kernel BUG at net/ipv6/ip6_fib.c:1217!
Oops: invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] SMP KASAN PTI
CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 6010 Comm: syz.0.17 Not tainted syzkaller #0 PREEMPT(full)
Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS Google 10/25/2025
RIP: 0010:fib6_add_rt2node+0x3433/0x3470 net/ipv6/ip6_fib.c:1217
[...]
Call Trace:
fib6_add+0x8da/0x18a0 net/ipv6/ip6_fib.c:1532
__ip6_ins_rt net/ipv6/route.c:1351 [inline]
ip6_route_add+0xde/0x1b0 net/ipv6/route.c:3946
ipv6_route_ioctl+0x35c/0x480 net/ipv6/route.c:4571
inet6_ioctl+0x219/0x280 net/ipv6/af_inet6.c:577
sock_do_ioctl+0xdc/0x300 net/socket.c:1245
sock_ioctl+0x576/0x790 net/socket.c:1366
vfs_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:51 [inline]
__do_sys_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:597 [inline]
__se_sys_ioctl+0xfc/0x170 fs/ioctl.c:583
do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:63 [inline]
do_syscall_64+0xfa/0xf80 arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:94
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x77/0x7f
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