In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
can: j1939: fix errant WARN_ON_ONCE in j1939_session_deactivate
The conclusion "j1939_session_deactivate() should be called with a
session ref-count of at least 2" is incorrect. In some concurrent
scenarios, j1939_session_deactivate can be called with the session
ref-count less than 2. But there is not any problem because it
will check the session active state before session putting in
j1939_session_deactivate_locked().
Here is the concurrent scenario of the problem reported by syzbot
and my reproduction log.
cpu0 cpu1
j1939_xtp_rx_eoma
j1939_xtp_rx_abort_one
j1939_session_get_by_addr [kref == 2]
j1939_session_get_by_addr [kref == 3]
j1939_session_deactivate [kref == 2]
j1939_session_put [kref == 1]
j1939_session_completed
j1939_session_deactivate
WARN_ON_ONCE(kref < 2)
=====================================================
WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 21 at net/can/j1939/transport.c:1088 j1939_session_deactivate+0x5f/0x70
CPU: 1 PID: 21 Comm: ksoftirqd/1 Not tainted 5.14.0-rc7+ #32
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.13.0-1ubuntu1 04/01/2014
RIP: 0010:j1939_session_deactivate+0x5f/0x70
Call Trace:
j1939_session_deactivate_activate_next+0x11/0x28
j1939_xtp_rx_eoma+0x12a/0x180
j1939_tp_recv+0x4a2/0x510
j1939_can_recv+0x226/0x380
can_rcv_filter+0xf8/0x220
can_receive+0x102/0x220
? process_backlog+0xf0/0x2c0
can_rcv+0x53/0xf0
__netif_receive_skb_one_core+0x67/0x90
? process_backlog+0x97/0x2c0
__netif_receive_skb+0x22/0x80
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (5.5): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 5.5 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 5.5 MEDIUMCVSS-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 2026-10-25). 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: 14 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 partial (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; 60 days if it is not.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (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