In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
xdp: Remove WARN() from __xdp_reg_mem_model()
syzkaller reports a warning in __xdp_reg_mem_model().
The warning occurs only if __mem_id_init_hash_table() returns an error. It
returns the error in two cases:
- memory allocation fails;
- rhashtable_init() fails when some fields of rhashtable_params
struct are not initialized properly.
The second case cannot happen since there is a static const rhashtable_params
struct with valid fields. So, warning is only triggered when there is a
problem with memory allocation.
Thus, there is no sense in using WARN() to handle this error and it can be
safely removed.
WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 5065 at net/core/xdp.c:299 __xdp_reg_mem_model+0x2d9/0x650 net/core/xdp.c:299
CPU: 0 PID: 5065 Comm: syz-executor883 Not tainted 6.8.0-syzkaller-05271-gf99c5f563c17 #0
Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS Google 03/27/2024
RIP: 0010:__xdp_reg_mem_model+0x2d9/0x650 net/core/xdp.c:299
Call Trace:
xdp_reg_mem_model+0x22/0x40 net/core/xdp.c:344
xdp_test_run_setup net/bpf/test_run.c:188 [inline]
bpf_test_run_xdp_live+0x365/0x1e90 net/bpf/test_run.c:377
bpf_prog_test_run_xdp+0x813/0x11b0 net/bpf/test_run.c:1267
bpf_prog_test_run+0x33a/0x3b0 kernel/bpf/syscall.c:4240
__sys_bpf+0x48d/0x810 kernel/bpf/syscall.c:5649
__do_sys_bpf kernel/bpf/syscall.c:5738 [inline]
__se_sys_bpf kernel/bpf/syscall.c:5736 [inline]
__x64_sys_bpf+0x7c/0x90 kernel/bpf/syscall.c:5736
do_syscall_64+0xfb/0x240
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x6d/0x75
Found by Linux Verification Center (linuxtesting.org) with syzkaller.
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
- 0.2% 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