In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
net/mlx5e: RX, Fix XDP multi-buf frag counting for legacy RQ
XDP multi-buf programs can modify the layout of the XDP buffer when the
program calls bpf_xdp_pull_data() or bpf_xdp_adjust_tail(). The
referenced commit in the fixes tag corrected the assumption in the mlx5
driver that the XDP buffer layout doesn't change during a program
execution. However, this fix introduced another issue: the dropped
fragments still need to be counted on the driver side to avoid page
fragment reference counting issues.
Such issue can be observed with the
test_xdp_native_adjst_tail_shrnk_data selftest when using a payload of
3600 and shrinking by 256 bytes (an upcoming selftest patch): the last
fragment gets released by the XDP code but doesn't get tracked by the
driver. This results in a negative pp_ref_count during page release and
the following splat:
WARNING: include/net/page_pool/helpers.h:297 at mlx5e_page_release_fragmented.isra.0+0x4a/0x50 [mlx5_core], CPU#12: ip/3137
Modules linked in: [...]
CPU: 12 UID: 0 PID: 3137 Comm: ip Not tainted 6.19.0-rc3+ #12 NONE
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS rel-1.16.3-0-ga6ed6b701f0a-prebuilt.qemu.org 04/01/2014
RIP: 0010:mlx5e_page_release_fragmented.isra.0+0x4a/0x50 [mlx5_core]
[...]
Call Trace:
mlx5e_dealloc_rx_wqe+0xcb/0x1a0 [mlx5_core]
mlx5e_free_rx_descs+0x7f/0x110 [mlx5_core]
mlx5e_close_rq+0x50/0x60 [mlx5_core]
mlx5e_close_queues+0x36/0x2c0 [mlx5_core]
mlx5e_close_channel+0x1c/0x50 [mlx5_core]
mlx5e_close_channels+0x45/0x80 [mlx5_core]
mlx5e_safe_switch_params+0x1a5/0x230 [mlx5_core]
mlx5e_change_mtu+0xf3/0x2f0 [mlx5_core]
netif_set_mtu_ext+0xf1/0x230
do_setlink.isra.0+0x219/0x1180
rtnl_newlink+0x79f/0xb60
rtnetlink_rcv_msg+0x213/0x3a0
netlink_rcv_skb+0x48/0xf0
netlink_unicast+0x24a/0x350
netlink_sendmsg+0x1ee/0x410
__sock_sendmsg+0x38/0x60
____sys_sendmsg+0x232/0x280
___sys_sendmsg+0x78/0xb0
__sys_sendmsg+0x5f/0xb0
[...]
do_syscall_64+0x57/0xc50
This patch fixes the issue by doing page frag counting on all the
original XDP buffer fragments for all relevant XDP actions (XDP_TX ,
XDP_REDIRECT and XDP_PASS). This is basically reverting to the original
counting before the commit in the fixes tag.
As frag_page is still pointing to the original tail, the nr_frags
parameter to xdp_update_skb_frags_info() needs to be calculated
in a different way to reflect the new nr_frags.
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
- 0.5% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-11-04). 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