In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
net: qrtr: fix refcount saturation and potential UAF in qrtr_port_remove
In qrtr_port_remove(), the socket reference count is decremented via
__sock_put() before the port is removed from the qrtr_ports XArray and
before the RCU grace period elapses.
This breaks the fundamental RCU update paradigm. It exposes a race
window where a concurrent RCU reader (such as qrtr_reset_ports() or
qrtr_port_lookup()) can obtain a pointer to the socket from the XArray,
and attempt to call sock_hold() on a socket whose reference count has
already dropped to zero.
This exact race condition was hit during syzkaller fuzzing, leading to
the following refcount saturation warning and a potential Use-After-Free:
refcount_t: saturated; leaking memory.
WARNING: CPU: 3 PID: 1273 at lib/refcount.c:22 refcount_warn_saturate+0xae/0x1d0
Modules linked in: qrtr(+) bochs drm_shmem_helper ...
Call Trace:
qrtr_reset_ports net/qrtr/af_qrtr.c:768 [inline] [qrtr]
__qrtr_bind.isra.0+0x48b/0x570 net/qrtr/af_qrtr.c:805 [qrtr]
qrtr_bind+0x17d/0x210 net/qrtr/af_qrtr.c:901 [qrtr]
kernel_bind+0xe4/0x120 net/socket.c:3592
qrtr_ns_init+0x1a6/0x380 net/qrtr/ns.c:715 [qrtr]
qrtr_proto_init+0x3b/0xff0 net/qrtr/af_qrtr.c:169 [qrtr]
do_one_initcall+0xf5/0x5e0 init/main.c:1283
...
Fix this by deferring the reference count decrement until after the
xa_erase() and the synchronize_rcu() complete.
(Note: The v1 of this patch incorrectly replaced __sock_put() with
sock_put(). As Simon Horman pointed out, the callers of qrtr_port_remove()
still hold a reference to the socket, so freeing the socket memory here
would lead to a subsequent UAF in the caller. Thus, the __sock_put() is
kept, but only repositioned to close the RCU race.)
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