In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
l2tp: use refcount_inc_not_zero in l2tp_session_get_by_ifname
A reader in l2tp_session_get_by_ifname() can return a pointer to a
session whose refcount has reached zero. The getter takes its
reference with plain refcount_inc(), but every other session getter
in the same file (l2tp_v2_session_get, l2tp_v3_session_get, and the
corresponding _get_next variants) uses refcount_inc_not_zero()
because the IDR/RCU lookup can race with refcount_dec_and_test() ->
l2tp_session_free() -> kfree_rcu(). The ifname getter is the only
outlier; the inconsistency was raised on-list after 979c017803c4
("l2tp: use list_del_rcu in l2tp_session_unhash").
A reader inside rcu_read_lock_bh() that matches session->ifname can
be preempted between the strcmp() and the refcount_inc(). If the
last reference drops on another CPU in that window, the reader's
refcount_inc() runs on a counter that has reached zero. refcount_t
catches the addition-on-zero, prints "refcount_t: addition on 0;
use-after-free", saturates the counter, and returns the saturated
pointer to the caller. Session memory is held live by the in-flight
RCU read section, but the kfree_rcu() callback queued from
l2tp_session_free() will free it once the grace period closes; a
caller that dereferences the returned session past that point hits
a slab-use-after-free. On PREEMPT_RT local_bh_disable() is a per-CPU
sleeping lock and the preemption window is real; on stock PREEMPT
kernels local_bh_disable() is a preempt_count increment that closes
the cross-CPU race in practice (see below).
Use refcount_inc_not_zero() and continue the list walk on failure,
matching the other session getters in the file. The ifname getter
is the only session getter in net/l2tp/ that still uses the bare
refcount_inc() pattern; this change restores file-internal
consistency. The success path is unchanged.
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
- 0.2% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-29). 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