In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
rxrpc: Fix irq-disabled in local_bh_enable()
The rxrpc_assess_MTU_size() function calls down into the IP layer to find
out the MTU size for a route. When accepting an incoming call, this is
called from rxrpc_new_incoming_call() which holds interrupts disabled
across the code that calls down to it. Unfortunately, the IP layer uses
local_bh_enable() which, config dependent, throws a warning if IRQs are
enabled:
WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 5544 at kernel/softirq.c:387 __local_bh_enable_ip+0x43/0xd0
...
RIP: 0010:__local_bh_enable_ip+0x43/0xd0
...
Call Trace:
rt_cache_route+0x7e/0xa0
rt_set_nexthop.isra.0+0x3b3/0x3f0
__mkroute_output+0x43a/0x460
ip_route_output_key_hash+0xf7/0x140
ip_route_output_flow+0x1b/0x90
rxrpc_assess_MTU_size.isra.0+0x2a0/0x590
rxrpc_new_incoming_peer+0x46/0x120
rxrpc_alloc_incoming_call+0x1b1/0x400
rxrpc_new_incoming_call+0x1da/0x5e0
rxrpc_input_packet+0x827/0x900
rxrpc_io_thread+0x403/0xb60
kthread+0x2f7/0x310
ret_from_fork+0x2a/0x230
ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30
...
hardirqs last enabled at (23): _raw_spin_unlock_irq+0x24/0x50
hardirqs last disabled at (24): _raw_read_lock_irq+0x17/0x70
softirqs last enabled at (0): copy_process+0xc61/0x2730
softirqs last disabled at (25): rt_add_uncached_list+0x3c/0x90
Fix this by moving the call to rxrpc_assess_MTU_size() out of
rxrpc_init_peer() and further up the stack where it can be done without
interrupts disabled.
It shouldn't be a problem for rxrpc_new_incoming_call() to do it after the
locks are dropped as pmtud is going to be performed by the I/O thread - and
we're in the I/O thread at this point.
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
- 0.4% 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 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: 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.
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