In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ice: prevent tstamp ring allocation for non-PF VSI types
The pf->txtime_txqs bitmap tracks which Tx queues have ETF (Earliest
TxTime First) offload enabled. This bitmap is indexed by queue number
and is set by ice_offload_txtime(), which only operates on PF VSI
queues.
However, ice_is_txtime_ena() does not check the VSI type before
consulting the bitmap. When ETF offload is enabled on PF Tx queue 0,
bit 0 is set in pf->txtime_txqs. During a subsequent PCI reset
rebuild, the CTRL VSI's Tx queue 0 is reconfigured and
ice_is_txtime_ena() is called for that ring. Since it only checks
pf->txtime_txqs by queue index without distinguishing VSI type, it
finds bit 0 set and returns true, matching the PF VSI's ETF queue,
not the CTRL VSI's. This causes ice_vsi_cfg_txq() to spuriously
allocate a tstamp_ring for the CTRL VSI ring.
Since CTRL VSI rings have no associated netdev, ice_clean_tx_ring()
takes an early return at the !netdev check before reaching
ice_free_tx_tstamp_ring(), leaking the allocation. Each PCI reset
leaks one 64-byte tstamp_ring.
Fix this by restricting ice_is_txtime_ena() to return true only for
PF VSI rings, since txtime_txqs is only meaningful for PF VSI queues.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
- EG Severity
- Not assessed: no CVSS publishedA missing CVSS is not a severity of zero.
- EG Likelihood
- 0.2% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-17). 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
- No SSVC decision: EchelonGraph has not assessed this CVECISA 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 BOD 26-04 block below.
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