In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
net/mlx5: Properly link new fs rules into the tree
Previously, add_rule_fg would only add newly created rules from the
handle into the tree when they had a refcount of 1. On the other hand,
create_flow_handle tries hard to find and reference already existing
identical rules instead of creating new ones.
These two behaviors can result in a situation where create_flow_handle
1) creates a new rule and references it, then
2) in a subsequent step during the same handle creation references it
again,
resulting in a rule with a refcount of 2 that is not linked into the
tree, will have a NULL parent and root and will result in a crash when
the flow group is deleted because del_sw_hw_rule, invoked on rule
deletion, assumes node->parent is != NULL.
This happened in the wild, due to another bug related to incorrect
handling of duplicate pkt_reformat ids, which lead to the code in
create_flow_handle incorrectly referencing a just-added rule in the same
flow handle, resulting in the problem described above. Full details are
at [1].
This patch changes add_rule_fg to add new rules without parents into
the tree, properly initializing them and avoiding the crash. This makes
it more consistent with how rules are added to an FTE in
create_flow_handle.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (9.1): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 9.1 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 9.1 CRITICALCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 1.4% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-23). 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: 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.
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