In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
mptcp: fix soft lockup in mptcp_recvmsg()
syzbot reported a soft lockup in mptcp_recvmsg() [0].
When receiving data with MSG_PEEK | MSG_WAITALL flags, the skb is not
removed from the sk_receive_queue. This causes sk_wait_data() to always
find available data and never perform actual waiting, leading to a soft
lockup.
Fix this by adding a 'last' parameter to track the last peeked skb.
This allows sk_wait_data() to make informed waiting decisions and prevent
infinite loops when MSG_PEEK is used.
[0]:
watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#2 stuck for 156s! [server:1963]
Modules linked in:
CPU: 2 UID: 0 PID: 1963 Comm: server Not tainted 6.19.0-rc8 #61 PREEMPT(none)
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.15.0-1 04/01/2014
RIP: 0010:sk_wait_data+0x15/0x190
Code: 80 00 00 00 00 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 f3 0f 1e fa 41 56 41 55 41 54 49 89 f4 55 48 89 d5 53 48 89 fb <48> 83 ec 30 65 48 8b 05 17 a4 6b 01 48 89 44 24 28 31 c0 65 48 8b
RSP: 0018:ffffc90000603ca0 EFLAGS: 00000246
RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: ffff888102bf0800 RCX: 0000000000000001
RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: ffffc90000603d18 RDI: ffff888102bf0800
RBP: 0000000000000000 R08: 0000000000000002 R09: 0000000000000101
R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000075 R12: ffffc90000603d18
R13: ffff888102bf0800 R14: ffff888102bf0800 R15: 0000000000000000
FS: 00007f6e38b8c4c0(0000) GS:ffff8881b877e000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
CR2: 000055aa7bff1680 CR3: 0000000105cbe000 CR4: 00000000000006f0
Call Trace:
mptcp_recvmsg+0x547/0x8c0 net/mptcp/protocol.c:2329
inet_recvmsg+0x11f/0x130 net/ipv4/af_inet.c:891
sock_recvmsg+0x94/0xc0 net/socket.c:1100
__sys_recvfrom+0xb2/0x130 net/socket.c:2256
__x64_sys_recvfrom+0x1f/0x30 net/socket.c:2267
do_syscall_64+0x59/0x2d0 arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:94
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:131
RIP: 0033:0x7f6e386a4a1d
Code: 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 00 00 0f 1f 44 00 00 48 8d 05 f1 de 2c 00 41 89 ca 8b 00 85 c0 75 20 45 31 c9 45 31 c0 b8 2d 00 00 00 0f 05 <48> 3d 00 f0 ff ff 77 6b f3 c3 66 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 00 00 41 56 41
RSP: 002b:00007ffc3c4bb078 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 000000000000002d
RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 000000000000861e RCX: 00007f6e386a4a1d
RDX: 00000000000003ff RSI: 00007ffc3c4bb150 RDI: 0000000000000004
RBP: 00007ffc3c4bb570 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000000000000
R10: 0000000000000103 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 00005605dbc00be0
R13: 00007ffc3c4bb650 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: 0000000000000000
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.5): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.5 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.5 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.3% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-11-01). 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