In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
liquidio: Adjust a NULL pointer handling path in lio_vf_rep_copy_packet
In lio_vf_rep_copy_packet() pg_info->page is compared to a NULL value,
but then it is unconditionally passed to skb_add_rx_frag() which looks
strange and could lead to null pointer dereference.
lio_vf_rep_copy_packet() call trace looks like:
octeon_droq_process_packets
octeon_droq_fast_process_packets
octeon_droq_dispatch_pkt
octeon_create_recv_info
...search in the dispatch_list...
->disp_fn(rdisp->rinfo, ...)
lio_vf_rep_pkt_recv(struct octeon_recv_info *recv_info, ...)
In this path there is no code which sets pg_info->page to NULL.
So this check looks unneeded and doesn't solve potential problem.
But I guess the author had reason to add a check and I have no such card
and can't do real test.
In addition, the code in the function liquidio_push_packet() in
liquidio/lio_core.c does exactly the same.
Based on this, I consider the most acceptable compromise solution to
adjust this issue by moving skb_add_rx_frag() into conditional scope.
Found by Linux Verification Center (linuxtesting.org) with SVACE.
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
- 0.3% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-17). 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 every mission impact level.CISA BOD 26-04: 60 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade 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 every mission impact level.
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (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)60 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (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