In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ipv4: free inet_opt and ireq_opt after an RCU grace period
tcp_v4_syn_recv_sock() transfers ownership of ireq->ireq_opt to the
child socket (newinet->inet_opt) without copying it.
Another cpu can concurrently process a retransmitted SYN for the same
request socket, and send a SYNACK from tcp_check_req().
tcp_v4_send_synack() and inet_csk_route_req() read ireq->ireq_opt
under rcu_read_lock() only, and ip_build_and_send_pkt() and
ip_options_build() then read opt->optlen twice.
Note that the SYNACK timer itself is not an issue: it holds a
reference on its request socket, and inet_csk_reqsk_queue_drop()
calls timer_delete_sync() before the child can be freed.
Since commit 079096f103fa ("tcp/dccp: install syn_recv requests
into ehash table"), request sockets are processed without holding
the listener lock, so nothing prevents the child socket from being
freed while the SYNACK is still being built. TCP child sockets do
not have SOCK_RCU_FREE, and inet_sock_destruct() frees inet_opt
with a plain kfree(), leading to a use-after-free in
ip_options_build().
A similar issue exists with request socket migration
(net.ipv4.tcp_migrate_req=1, or a BPF_SK_REUSEPORT_SELECT_OR_MIGRATE
program). reqsk_timer_handler() clones the request socket with
inet_reqsk_clone(), so that the old request socket and its clone
share the same ireq_opt, then reqsk_migrate_reset() clears the
pointer in the old one. Another cpu holding a reference on the old
request socket can still be using these options (sending a SYNACK,
or creating a child in tcp_v4_syn_recv_sock()) when the clone is
freed, and tcp_v4_reqsk_destructor() also uses a plain kfree().
Readers already use RCU, and other paths replacing inet_opt
(do_ip_setsockopt(), cipso_v4_sock_setattr()...) already use
kfree_rcu(). Use kfree_rcu() in inet_sock_destruct() and
tcp_v4_reqsk_destructor() as well.
IPv6 is not affected by the first issue, because tcp_v6_syn_recv_sock()
duplicates the options. tcp_v6_reqsk_destructor() has the same
migration issue with ipv6_opt, which is only set by CALIPSO. This
will be addressed in a separate patch.
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
- 0.8% 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, Track* at medium and Attend at high mission impact.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, Track* at medium and Attend at high mission impact.
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high.
Exploitation public PoC (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