In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
tcp: clear sock_ops cb flags before force-closing a child socket
A child socket inherits the listener's bpf_sock_ops_cb_flags via
sk_clone_lock(). If its setup fails in tcp_v4_syn_recv_sock() /
tcp_v6_syn_recv_sock(), the child is freed through put_and_exit, where
inet_csk_prepare_forced_close() drops the socket lock and tcp_done() runs
without it.
If BPF_SOCK_OPS_STATE_CB_FLAG was inherited, tcp_done() -> tcp_set_state()
calls tcp_call_bpf(), which expects the lock and trips sock_owned_by_me():
WARNING: include/net/sock.h:1799 at tcp_set_state+0x433/0x550
RIP: 0010:tcp_set_state+0x433/0x550 include/net/sock.h:1799
Call Trace:
tcp_done+0xba/0x250 net/ipv4/tcp.c:5095
tcp_v4_syn_recv_sock+0x850/0xa50 net/ipv4/tcp_ipv4.c:1787
tcp_check_req+0xf30/0x1360 net/ipv4/tcp_minisocks.c:926
tcp_v4_rcv+0x1047/0x1b50 net/ipv4/tcp_ipv4.c:2164
The child is freed before it is ever established, so it should run no
sock_ops callback. Clear its cb flags in inet_csk_prepare_for_destroy_sock(),
the common point for the IPv4, IPv6 and chtls forced-close paths and for the
MPTCP ->syn_recv_sock() failure path (dispose_child), which reaches tcp_done()
on a child that was never established too.
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