In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
xprtrdma: Decouple req recycling from RPC completion
rl_kref formerly served two distinct lifetimes through a single
refcount: it gated when a Reply could wake its RPC task, and it
gated when an rpcrdma_req could return to its free pool. The
marshal path took the Send-side reference only when SGEs needed
DMA-unmap (sc_unmap_count > 0), which made a Send carrying only
pre-registered buffers an exception: the Reply handler dropped
rl_kref from 1 to 0 and freed the req while the HCA might still
be DMA-reading from its send buffer.
Give rl_kref a narrower job. The RPC layer takes one reference
when slot allocation hands a req out. rpcrdma_prepare_send_sges()
takes a Send-side reference unconditionally after WR preparation
succeeds. xprt_rdma_free_slot() and xprt_rdma_bc_free_rqst() drop
the RPC-layer reference; rpcrdma_sendctx_unmap() drops the
Send-side reference. The req returns to its free pool only after
both owners have signed off.
The existing kref_init(&req->rl_kref) call in
rpcrdma_prepare_send_sges() is removed. Initialization moves to
the slot-allocation paths (xprt_rdma_alloc_slot and
rpcrdma_bc_rqst_get), and the release callback re-arms rl_kref
before the req returns to a free pool. A re-init in the marshal
path would discard the RPC-layer reference that already exists
on entry.
Three invariants follow:
- Any rpcrdma_req held by an rpc_rqst has rl_kref >= 1.
xprt_rdma_alloc_slot(), rpcrdma_bc_rqst_get(), and the
backlog-wake branch in xprt_rdma_alloc_slot() each kref_init
rl_kref before publishing the req. Without this invariant,
an RPC task that aborts between slot allocation and marshal
(gss_refresh failure or signal during call_connect, for
example) would drive xprt_release() ->
xprt_rdma_free_slot() -> kref_put against a refcount of
zero, saturating refcount_t and stranding the slot.
- The Send-side reference is taken only after WR prep
succeeds. A mapping failure in rpcrdma_prepare_send_sges()
runs rpcrdma_sendctx_cancel(), which DMA-unmaps the sendctx
and clears sc_req without touching rl_kref. The sendctx
ring walks in rpcrdma_sendctx_put_locked() and
rpcrdma_sendctxs_destroy() skip entries with sc_req == NULL,
so a burst of -EIO marshal failures cannot hold reqs off
rb_send_bufs.
- The release callback re-arms rl_kref so the next consumer
enters with the invariant satisfied.
Replies now complete the RPC directly. rpcrdma_reply_handler()
calls rpcrdma_complete_rqst() in place of kref_put on the
non-LocalInv branch. The LocalInv branch already completes the
RPC from frwr_unmap_async() and is unaffected.
Because Send-side references can now outlive RPC completion,
connection teardown drains sendctx entries whose unsignaled
Sends never had a later signaled completion to walk the ring.
rpcrdma_sendctxs_destroy() walks the active range and runs
rpcrdma_sendctx_unmap() on each entry with a non-NULL sc_req
before the request buffers are reset, and is moved ahead of
rpcrdma_reqs_reset() in rpcrdma_xprt_disconnect() so the reqs
are still in their pre-reset state when the Send-side refs are
released.
The drain creates a teardown-ordering hazard on the backchannel
path. With the new lifetime, releasing a bc_prealloc req from
rpcrdma_req_release() re-adds it to bc_pa_list. The disconnect
in xprt_rdma_destroy() runs after xprt_destroy_backchannel() has
already emptied bc_pa_list, so the drained reqs would otherwise
leak. xprt_rdma_destroy() now runs xprt_rdma_bc_destroy(xprt, 0)
a second time after the disconnect to reclaim them.
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
- 0.7% 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