In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
xfrm: defensively unhash xfrm_state lists in __xfrm_state_delete
KASAN reproduces a slab-use-after-free in __xfrm_state_delete()'s
hlist_del_rcu calls under syzkaller load on linux-6.12.y stable
(reproduced on 6.12.47, also reachable via the same code path on
torvalds/master and on the ipsec tree). Nine unique signatures cluster
in the xfrm_state lifecycle, the load-bearing one being:
BUG: KASAN: slab-use-after-free in __hlist_del include/linux/list.h:990 [inline]
BUG: KASAN: slab-use-after-free in hlist_del_rcu include/linux/rculist.h:516 [inline]
BUG: KASAN: slab-use-after-free in __xfrm_state_delete net/xfrm/xfrm_state.c
Write of size 8 at addr ffff8881198bcb70 by task kworker/u8:9/435
Workqueue: netns cleanup_net
Call Trace:
__hlist_del / hlist_del_rcu
__xfrm_state_delete
xfrm_state_delete
xfrm_state_flush
xfrm_state_fini
ops_exit_list
cleanup_net
The other observed signatures hit the same slab object from
__xfrm_state_lookup, xfrm_alloc_spi, __xfrm_state_insert and an OOB
write variant of __xfrm_state_delete, all on the byseq/byspi
hash chains.
__xfrm_state_delete() guards its byseq and byspi unhashes with
value-based predicates:
if (x->km.seq)
hlist_del_rcu(&x->byseq);
if (x->id.spi)
hlist_del_rcu(&x->byspi);
while everywhere else in the file (e.g. state_cache, state_cache_input)
the safer hlist_unhashed() check is used. xfrm_alloc_spi() sets
x->id.spi = newspi inside xfrm_state_lock and then immediately inserts
into byspi, but a path that observes x->id.spi != 0 outside of
xfrm_state_lock can still skip-or-hit the byspi unhash inconsistently
with whether x is actually on the list. The same holds for x->km.seq
versus byseq, and the bydst/bysrc unhashes have no predicate at all,
so a second __xfrm_state_delete() on the same object writes through
LIST_POISON pprev.
The defensive change here:
- Use hlist_del_init_rcu() instead of hlist_del_rcu() on bydst,
bysrc, byseq and byspi so a second deletion is a no-op rather
than a write through LIST_POISON pprev. The byseq/byspi nodes
are already initialised in xfrm_state_alloc().
- Test hlist_unhashed() rather than the value predicate for
byseq/byspi, so the unhash decision tracks list state rather than
mutable scalar fields.
Empirical verification: applied this patch on top of v6.12.47, rebuilt,
and re-ran the same syzkaller harness for 1h16m on a previously-crashy
configuration that produced ~100 hits each of slab-use-after-free
Read in xfrm_alloc_spi / Read in __xfrm_state_lookup / Write in
__xfrm_state_delete. After the patch, 7.1M execs across 32 VMs at
~1550 exec/sec produced zero xfrm_state UAF/OOB hits. /proc/slabinfo
confirms the xfrm_state slab is actively allocated and freed during
the run (~143 KiB resident), so the fuzzer is still exercising those
code paths -- they just no longer crash.
Reproduction:
- Linux 6.12.47 x86_64 + KASAN_GENERIC + KASAN_INLINE + KCOV
- syzkaller @ 746545b8b1e4c3a128db8652b340d3df90ce61db
- 32 QEMU/KVM VMs x 2 vCPU on AWS c5.metal bare metal
- 9 unique signatures collected in ~9h, all within xfrm_state
lifecycle
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.8 HIGHCVSS-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 2026-10-27). 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 (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (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 Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (CISA Vulnrichment). 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