In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
SUNRPC: pin upper rpc_clnt across the TLS connect_worker
The TLS connect path has a use-after-free: nothing pins the
upper rpc_clnt across the delayed connect_worker. xs_connect()
stores task->tk_client in sock_xprt::clnt as a raw pointer
and queues the worker; for TLS-secured transports that worker
is xs_tcp_tls_setup_socket(), which reads several fields out
of the saved pointer (cl_timeout, cl_program, cl_prog,
cl_vers, cl_cred, cl_stats) to construct the args for the
inner handshake rpc_clnt.
The xprt does not reference the rpc_clnt; the rpc_clnt
references the xprt. xs_destroy() does cancel the
connect_worker, but it runs only when the xprt's refcount
drops to zero, which cannot happen until the rpc_clnt
releases its cl_xprt reference in rpc_free_client_work().
When a TLS handshake fails fatally (for example, an mTLS
mount whose client cert does not match the server), the
connecting task is woken with -EACCES and exits, the mount
caller invokes rpc_shutdown_client(), and the upper rpc_clnt
is freed before the queued connect_worker fires.
xs_tcp_tls_setup_socket() then dereferences the freed clnt,
producing the refcount_t underflow Michael Nemanov reported.
Take a reference on the upper rpc_clnt in xs_connect() for
TLS transports via a new rpc_hold_client() helper, and drop
it in the connect_worker's exit path with rpc_release_client().
The xprt_lock_connect() / xprt_unlock_connect() pairing
already serialises xs_connect() with xs_tcp_tls_setup_socket(),
so the take and release are balanced one-for-one.
The non-TLS connect worker (xs_tcp_setup_socket) never reads
sock_xprt::clnt, so leave that path alone and avoid the
clnt-holds-xprt-holds-clnt cycle that would otherwise prevent
xprt destruction.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (9.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 9.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 9.8 CRITICALCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.6% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-11-12). 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; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 3 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days 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; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable yes (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)3 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; 60 days if it is not.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable yes (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