In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ppp: defer channel free to an RCU grace period to fix pppol2tp RX UAF
pppol2tp_recv() runs in the L2TP UDP-encap softirq RX path:
l2tp_udp_encap_recv() -> l2tp_recv_common() -> pppol2tp_recv()
-> ppp_input(&po->chan)
It runs under rcu_read_lock() holding only an l2tp_session reference and
takes NO reference on the internal PPP channel (struct channel,
chan->ppp) that ppp_input() dereferences.
The pppox socket is SOCK_RCU_FREE, so 'po' and the embedded ppp_channel
are RCU-safe. But the internal struct channel is a separate allocation
that ppp_release_channel() frees with a plain kfree():
close(data socket) -> pppol2tp_release() -> pppox_unbind_sock()
-> ppp_unregister_channel() -> ppp_release_channel() -> kfree(pch)
For a channel that is bound (PPPIOCGCHAN) but not attached to a ppp unit
(no PPPIOCCONNECT, pch->ppp == NULL) and not bridged, teardown skips
both ppp_disconnect_channel()'s synchronize_net() and
ppp_unbridge_channels()'s synchronize_rcu(), so the kfree() has no grace
period. rcu_read_lock() in pppol2tp_recv() does not protect against a
plain kfree(), so an in-flight ppp_input() on one CPU can dereference
the channel just freed by close() on another CPU.
The bug is reachable by an unprivileged user.
Defer the channel free to an RCU callback via call_rcu() so the grace
period fences any in-flight ppp_input(). The disconnect and unbridge
teardown paths already fence with synchronize_net()/synchronize_rcu();
call_rcu() does the same here without stalling the close() path.
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 2026-10-27). 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