In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ipv6: anycast: insert aca into global hash under idev->lock
syzbot reported a splat [1]: a slab-use-after-free in
ipv6_chk_acast_addr(), which walks the global inet6_acaddr_lst[] hash
under RCU and dereferences a struct ifacaddr6 that has already been
freed while still linked in the hash, so a later reader walks into a
dangling node.
In __ipv6_dev_ac_inc() the aca is allocated with refcount 1, then
aca_get() bumps it to 2 to keep it alive across the unlocked region.
It is published to idev->ac_list under idev->lock, but
ipv6_add_acaddr_hash() runs after write_unlock_bh(). A concurrent
teardown (ipv6_ac_destroy_dev() from addrconf_ifdown(), under RTNL)
can slip into that window:
CPU0 __ipv6_dev_ac_inc CPU1 ipv6_ac_destroy_dev (RTNL)
------------------------------ ------------------------------------
aca_alloc() refcnt 1
aca_get() refcnt 2
write_lock_bh(idev->lock)
add aca to ac_list
write_unlock_bh(idev->lock)
write_lock_bh(idev->lock)
pull aca off ac_list
write_unlock_bh(idev->lock)
ipv6_del_acaddr_hash(aca)
hlist_del_init_rcu() is a no-op,
aca is not in the hash yet
aca_put() refcnt 2->1
ipv6_add_acaddr_hash(aca)
aca now inserted into the hash
aca_put() refcnt 1->0
call_rcu(aca_free_rcu) -> kfree(aca)
The hash removal becomes a no-op because the insertion has not
happened yet, so once CPU0 inserts and drops the last reference, the
aca is freed while still linked in inet6_acaddr_lst[], and readers
dereference freed memory after the slab slot is reused.
This window opened once RTNL stopped serializing the join path against
device teardown. Move ipv6_add_acaddr_hash() inside the idev->lock
section so the ac_list and hash insertions are atomic with respect to
teardown: a racing remover now either misses the aca entirely or finds
it in both lists.
acaddr_hash_lock is now nested under idev->lock, which is acquired in
softirq context, so switch all acaddr_hash_lock sites to spin_lock_bh()
to avoid the irq lock inversion reported in [2].
[1] https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=a01df04303c131efbf3a
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/[email protected]/
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
- 0.1% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-24). 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 (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.
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