In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
net: atlantic: fix fragment overflow handling in RX path
The atlantic driver can receive packets with more than MAX_SKB_FRAGS (17)
fragments when handling large multi-descriptor packets. This causes an
out-of-bounds write in skb_add_rx_frag_netmem() leading to kernel panic.
The issue occurs because the driver doesn't check the total number of
fragments before calling skb_add_rx_frag(). When a packet requires more
than MAX_SKB_FRAGS fragments, the fragment index exceeds the array bounds.
Fix by assuming there will be an extra frag if buff->len > AQ_CFG_RX_HDR_SIZE,
then all fragments are accounted for. And reusing the existing check to
prevent the overflow earlier in the code path.
This crash occurred in production with an Aquantia AQC113 10G NIC.
Stack trace from production environment:
RIP: 0010:skb_add_rx_frag_netmem+0x29/0xd0
Code: 90 f3 0f 1e fa 0f 1f 44 00 00 48 89 f8 41 89
ca 48 89 d7 48 63 ce 8b 90 c0 00 00 00 48 c1 e1 04 48 01 ca 48 03 90
c8 00 00 00 <48> 89 7a 30 44 89 52 3c 44 89 42 38 40 f6 c7 01 75 74 48
89 fa 83
RSP: 0018:ffffa9bec02a8d50 EFLAGS: 00010287
RAX: ffff925b22e80a00 RBX: ffff925ad38d2700 RCX:
fffffffe0a0c8000
RDX: ffff9258ea95bac0 RSI: ffff925ae0a0c800 RDI:
0000000000037a40
RBP: 0000000000000024 R08: 0000000000000000 R09:
0000000000000021
R10: 0000000000000848 R11: 0000000000000000 R12:
ffffa9bec02a8e24
R13: ffff925ad8615570 R14: 0000000000000000 R15:
ffff925b22e80a00
FS: 0000000000000000(0000)
GS:ffff925e47880000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
CR2: ffff9258ea95baf0 CR3: 0000000166022004 CR4:
0000000000f72ef0
PKRU: 55555554
Call Trace:aq_ring_rx_clean+0x175/0xe60 [atlantic]
? aq_ring_rx_clean+0x14d/0xe60 [atlantic]
? aq_ring_tx_clean+0xdf/0x190 [atlantic]
? kmem_cache_free+0x348/0x450
? aq_vec_poll+0x81/0x1d0 [atlantic]
? __napi_poll+0x28/0x1c0
? net_rx_action+0x337/0x420
Changes in v4:
- Add Fixes: tag to satisfy patch validation requirements.
Changes in v3:
- Fix by assuming there will be an extra frag if buff->len > AQ_CFG_RX_HDR_SIZE,
then all fragments are accounted for.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (9.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 9.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 9.8 CRITICALCVSS-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 2026-10-22). 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