In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
bonding: refuse to enslave CAN devices
syzbot reported a kernel paging request crash in
can_rx_unregister() inside net/can/af_can.c. The crash occurs
because a virtual CAN device (vxcan) is being enslaved to a
bonding master.
During the enslavement process, the bonding driver mutates
and modifies the network device states to fit an Ethernet-like
aggregation model. However, CAN devices operate on a completely
different Layer 2 architecture, relying on the CAN mid-layer
private data structure (can_ml_priv) instead of standard
Ethernet structures. Since bonding does not initialize or
maintain these CAN structures, subsequent operations on the
half-enslaved interface (such as closing associated sockets
via isotp_release) lead to a null-pointer dereference when
accessing the CAN receiver lists.
Bonding CAN interfaces is architecturally invalid as CAN lacks
MAC addresses, ARP capabilities, and standard Ethernet
link-layer mechanisms. While generic loopback devices are
blocked globally in net/core/dev.c, virtual CAN devices
bypass this check because they do not carry the IFF_LOOPBACK
flag, despite acting as local software-loopbacks.
Fix this by explicitly blocking network devices of type
ARPHRD_CAN from being enslaved at the very beginning of
bond_enslave(). This prevents illegal state mutations,
eliminates the resulting KASAN crashes, and avoids potential
memory leaks from incomplete socket cleanups.
As the CAN support has been added a long time after bonding
the Fixes-tag points to the introduction of ARPHRD_CAN that
would have needed a specific handling in bonding_main.c.
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