In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
clsact: Fix use-after-free in init/destroy rollback asymmetry
Fix a use-after-free in the clsact qdisc upon init/destroy rollback asymmetry.
The latter is achieved by first fully initializing a clsact instance, and
then in a second step having a replacement failure for the new clsact qdisc
instance. clsact_init() initializes ingress first and then takes care of the
egress part. This can fail midway, for example, via tcf_block_get_ext(). Upon
failure, the kernel will trigger the clsact_destroy() callback.
Commit 1cb6f0bae504 ("bpf: Fix too early release of tcx_entry") details the
way how the transition is happening. If tcf_block_get_ext on the q->ingress_block
ends up failing, we took the tcx_miniq_inc reference count on the ingress
side, but not yet on the egress side. clsact_destroy() tests whether the
{ingress,egress}_entry was non-NULL. However, even in midway failure on the
replacement, both are in fact non-NULL with a valid egress_entry from the
previous clsact instance.
What we really need to test for is whether the qdisc instance-specific ingress
or egress side previously got initialized. This adds a small helper for checking
the miniq initialization called mini_qdisc_pair_inited, and utilizes that upon
clsact_destroy() in order to fix the use-after-free scenario. Convert the
ingress_destroy() side as well so both are consistent to each other.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.8 HIGHCVSS-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 2026-10-27). 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 (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (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; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (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