In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
eth: bnxt: do not update checksum in bnxt_xdp_build_skb()
The bnxt_rx_pkt() updates ip_summed value at the end if checksum offload
is enabled.
When the XDP-MB program is attached and it returns XDP_PASS, the
bnxt_xdp_build_skb() is called to update skb_shared_info.
The main purpose of bnxt_xdp_build_skb() is to update skb_shared_info,
but it updates ip_summed value too if checksum offload is enabled.
This is actually duplicate work.
When the bnxt_rx_pkt() updates ip_summed value, it checks if ip_summed
is CHECKSUM_NONE or not.
It means that ip_summed should be CHECKSUM_NONE at this moment.
But ip_summed may already be updated to CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY in the
XDP-MB-PASS path.
So the by skb_checksum_none_assert() WARNS about it.
This is duplicate work and updating ip_summed in the
bnxt_xdp_build_skb() is not needed.
Splat looks like:
WARNING: CPU: 3 PID: 5782 at ./include/linux/skbuff.h:5155 bnxt_rx_pkt+0x479b/0x7610 [bnxt_en]
Modules linked in: bnxt_re bnxt_en rdma_ucm rdma_cm iw_cm ib_cm ib_uverbs veth xt_nat xt_tcpudp xt_conntrack nft_chain_nat xt_MASQUERADE nf_]
CPU: 3 UID: 0 PID: 5782 Comm: socat Tainted: G W 6.14.0-rc4+ #27
Tainted: [W]=WARN
Hardware name: ASUS System Product Name/PRIME Z690-P D4, BIOS 0603 11/01/2021
RIP: 0010:bnxt_rx_pkt+0x479b/0x7610 [bnxt_en]
Code: 54 24 0c 4c 89 f1 4c 89 ff c1 ea 1f ff d3 0f 1f 00 49 89 c6 48 85 c0 0f 84 4c e5 ff ff 48 89 c7 e8 ca 3d a0 c8 e9 8f f4 ff ff <0f> 0b f
RSP: 0018:ffff88881ba09928 EFLAGS: 00010202
RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: 00000000c7590303 RCX: 0000000000000000
RDX: 1ffff1104e7d1610 RSI: 0000000000000001 RDI: ffff8881c91300b8
RBP: ffff88881ba09b28 R08: ffff888273e8b0d0 R09: ffff888273e8b070
R10: ffff888273e8b010 R11: ffff888278b0f000 R12: ffff888273e8b080
R13: ffff8881c9130e00 R14: ffff8881505d3800 R15: ffff888273e8b000
FS: 00007f5a2e7be080(0000) GS:ffff88881ba00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
CR2: 00007fff2e708ff8 CR3: 000000013e3b0000 CR4: 00000000007506f0
PKRU: 55555554
Call Trace:
? __warn+0xcd/0x2f0
? bnxt_rx_pkt+0x479b/0x7610
? report_bug+0x326/0x3c0
? handle_bug+0x53/0xa0
? exc_invalid_op+0x14/0x50
? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x16/0x20
? bnxt_rx_pkt+0x479b/0x7610
? bnxt_rx_pkt+0x3e41/0x7610
? __pfx_bnxt_rx_pkt+0x10/0x10
? napi_complete_done+0x2cf/0x7d0
__bnxt_poll_work+0x4e8/0x1220
? __pfx___bnxt_poll_work+0x10/0x10
? __pfx_mark_lock.part.0+0x10/0x10
bnxt_poll_p5+0x36a/0xfa0
? __pfx_bnxt_poll_p5+0x10/0x10
__napi_poll.constprop.0+0xa0/0x440
net_rx_action+0x899/0xd00
...
Following ping.py patch adds xdp-mb-pass case. so ping.py is going
to be able to reproduce this issue.
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
- 0.5% 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; 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