In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
net/smc: fix NULL dereference and UAF in smc_tcp_syn_recv_sock()
Syzkaller reported a panic in smc_tcp_syn_recv_sock() [1].
smc_tcp_syn_recv_sock() is called in the TCP receive path
(softirq) via icsk_af_ops->syn_recv_sock on the clcsock (TCP
listening socket). It reads sk_user_data to get the smc_sock
pointer. However, when the SMC listen socket is being closed
concurrently, smc_close_active() sets clcsock->sk_user_data
to NULL under sk_callback_lock, and then the smc_sock itself
can be freed via sock_put() in smc_release().
This leads to two issues:
1) NULL pointer dereference: sk_user_data is NULL when
accessed.
2) Use-after-free: sk_user_data is read as non-NULL, but the
smc_sock is freed before its fields (e.g., queued_smc_hs,
ori_af_ops) are accessed.
The race window looks like this (the syzkaller crash [1]
triggers via the SYN cookie path: tcp_get_cookie_sock() ->
smc_tcp_syn_recv_sock(), but the normal tcp_check_req() path
has the same race):
CPU A (softirq) CPU B (process ctx)
tcp_v4_rcv()
TCP_NEW_SYN_RECV:
sk = req->rsk_listener
sock_hold(sk)
/* No lock on listener */
smc_close_active():
write_lock_bh(cb_lock)
sk_user_data = NULL
write_unlock_bh(cb_lock)
...
smc_clcsock_release()
sock_put(smc->sk) x2
-> smc_sock freed!
tcp_check_req()
smc_tcp_syn_recv_sock():
smc = user_data(sk)
-> NULL or dangling
smc->queued_smc_hs
-> crash!
Note that the clcsock and smc_sock are two independent objects
with separate refcounts. TCP stack holds a reference on the
clcsock, which keeps it alive, but this does NOT prevent the
smc_sock from being freed.
Fix this by using RCU and refcount_inc_not_zero() to safely
access smc_sock. Since smc_tcp_syn_recv_sock() is called in
the TCP three-way handshake path, taking read_lock_bh on
sk_callback_lock is too heavy and would not survive a SYN
flood attack. Using rcu_read_lock() is much more lightweight.
- Set SOCK_RCU_FREE on the SMC listen socket so that
smc_sock freeing is deferred until after the RCU grace
period. This guarantees the memory is still valid when
accessed inside rcu_read_lock().
- Use rcu_read_lock() to protect reading sk_user_data.
- Use refcount_inc_not_zero(&smc->sk.sk_refcnt) to pin the
smc_sock. If the refcount has already reached zero (close
path completed), it returns false and we bail out safely.
Note: smc_hs_congested() has a similar lockless read of
sk_user_data without rcu_read_lock(), but it only checks for
NULL and accesses the global smc_hs_wq, never dereferencing
any smc_sock field, so it is not affected.
Reproducer was verified with mdelay injection and smc_run,
the issue no longer occurs with this patch applied.
[1] https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=827ae2bfb3a3529333e9
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
- 0.4% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-29). 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: 3 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 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)3 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 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