In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
net/smc: fix UAF in smc_cdc_rx_handler() by pinning the socket
smc_cdc_rx_handler() looks up the connection by token under the link
group's conns_lock, drops the lock, and then dereferences conn and the
smc_sock derived from it, ending in sock_hold(&smc->sk) inside
smc_cdc_msg_recv(). No reference is held across the lock release.
The only reference pinning the socket while the connection is
discoverable in the link group is taken in smc_lgr_register_conn()
(sock_hold) and dropped in __smc_lgr_unregister_conn() (sock_put), both
under conns_lock. Once the handler drops conns_lock, a concurrent
close() -> smc_release() -> smc_conn_free() -> smc_lgr_unregister_conn()
can drop that reference and free the smc_sock, so the handler's later
sock_hold() runs on freed memory:
WARNING: lib/refcount.c:25 at refcount_warn_saturate
Workqueue: rxe_wq do_work
refcount_warn_saturate (lib/refcount.c:25)
smc_cdc_msg_recv (net/smc/smc_cdc.c:430)
smc_cdc_rx_handler (net/smc/smc_cdc.c:502)
smc_wr_rx_tasklet_fn (net/smc/smc_wr.c:445)
tasklet_action_common (kernel/softirq.c:938)
handle_softirqs (kernel/softirq.c:622)
Kernel panic - not syncing: panic_on_warn set
Only SMC-R is affected. The SMC-D receive tasklet is stopped by
tasklet_kill(&conn->rx_tsklet) in smc_conn_free() before the connection
is unregistered, so it cannot run concurrently with the free.
Take the socket reference while still holding conns_lock, so the
registration reference can no longer be the last one, and drop it once
the handler is done.
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
- 0.6% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-19). 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