In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
net/handshake: Drain pending requests at net namespace exit
The arguments to list_splice_init() in handshake_net_exit() are
reversed. The call moves the local empty "requests" list onto
hn->hn_requests, leaving the local list empty, so the subsequent
drain loop runs zero iterations. Pending handshake requests that
had not yet been accepted are not torn down when the net namespace
is destroyed; each one keeps a reference on a socket file and on
the handshake_req allocation.
Pass the source and destination in the documented order
(list_splice_init(list, head) moves list onto head) so the pending
list is transferred to the local scratch list and drained through
handshake_complete().
Fixing the splice direction exposes a list-corruption race. After
the splice each req->hr_list still has non-empty link pointers,
threading the stack-local scratch list rather than hn_requests.
A concurrent handshake_req_cancel() -- for example, from sunrpc's
TLS timeout on a kernel socket whose netns reference was not
taken -- finds the request through the rhashtable, calls
remove_pending(), and sees !list_empty(&req->hr_list).
__remove_pending_locked() then list_del_init()s an entry off the
scratch list while the drain iterates, corrupting it. The same
call arriving after the drain loop has run list_del() on an
entry hits LIST_POISON instead.
Have remove_pending() check HANDSHAKE_F_NET_DRAINING under
hn_lock and report not-found when drain is in progress. The
drain has already taken ownership; handshake_complete()'s existing
test_and_set on HANDSHAKE_F_REQ_COMPLETED still arbitrates
between drain and cancel for who calls the consumer's hp_done. Use
list_del_init() rather than list_del() in the drain so req->hr_list
does not carry LIST_POISON after drain releases the entry.
The DRAINING guard in remove_pending() makes cancel return false,
but cancel still falls through to test_and_set_bit on
HANDSHAKE_F_REQ_COMPLETED and drops the request's hr_file reference.
Without another pin, if that is the last reference, sk_destruct frees
the request while it is still linked on the drain loop's local list.
Pin each request's hr_file under hn_lock before releasing the list,
and drop that drain pin after the loop finishes with the request.
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
- 0.5% 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; 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