In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
net: dsa: avoid suspicious RCU usage for synced VLAN-aware MAC addresses
When using the felix driver (the only one which supports UC filtering
and MC filtering) as a DSA master for a random other DSA switch, one can
see the following stack trace when the downstream switch ports join a
VLAN-aware bridge:
=============================
WARNING: suspicious RCU usage
-----------------------------
net/8021q/vlan_core.c:238 suspicious rcu_dereference_protected() usage!
stack backtrace:
Workqueue: dsa_ordered dsa_slave_switchdev_event_work
Call trace:
lockdep_rcu_suspicious+0x170/0x210
vlan_for_each+0x8c/0x188
dsa_slave_sync_uc+0x128/0x178
__hw_addr_sync_dev+0x138/0x158
dsa_slave_set_rx_mode+0x58/0x70
__dev_set_rx_mode+0x88/0xa8
dev_uc_add+0x74/0xa0
dsa_port_bridge_host_fdb_add+0xec/0x180
dsa_slave_switchdev_event_work+0x7c/0x1c8
process_one_work+0x290/0x568
What it's saying is that vlan_for_each() expects rtnl_lock() context and
it's not getting it, when it's called from the DSA master's ndo_set_rx_mode().
The caller of that - dsa_slave_set_rx_mode() - is the slave DSA
interface's dsa_port_bridge_host_fdb_add() which comes from the deferred
dsa_slave_switchdev_event_work().
We went to great lengths to avoid the rtnl_lock() context in that call
path in commit 0faf890fc519 ("net: dsa: drop rtnl_lock from
dsa_slave_switchdev_event_work"), and calling rtnl_lock() is simply not
an option due to the possibility of deadlocking when calling
dsa_flush_workqueue() from the call paths that do hold rtnl_lock() -
basically all of them.
So, when the DSA master calls vlan_for_each() from its ndo_set_rx_mode(),
the state of the 8021q driver on this device is really not protected
from concurrent access by anything.
Looking at net/8021q/, I don't think that vlan_info->vid_list was
particularly designed with RCU traversal in mind, so introducing an RCU
read-side form of vlan_for_each() - vlan_for_each_rcu() - won't be so
easy, and it also wouldn't be exactly what we need anyway.
In general I believe that the solution isn't in net/8021q/ anyway;
vlan_for_each() is not cut out for this task. DSA doesn't need rtnl_lock()
to be held per se - since it's not a netdev state change that we're
blocking, but rather, just concurrent additions/removals to a VLAN list.
We don't even need sleepable context - the callback of vlan_for_each()
just schedules deferred work.
The proposed escape is to remove the dependency on vlan_for_each() and
to open-code a non-sleepable, rtnl-free alternative to that, based on
copies of the VLAN list modified from .ndo_vlan_rx_add_vid() and
.ndo_vlan_rx_kill_vid().
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.5): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.5 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.5 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.3% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-11-02). 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; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).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 or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or 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