In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
gve: fix header buffer corruption with header-split and HW-GRO
The DQO RX datapath programs a per-buffer-queue-descriptor
header_buf_addr at post time and reads the split header back at
completion time. Both the post and the read currently index the
header buffer by queue position rather than by the buffer's identity:
- post (gve_rx_post_buffers_dqo): header_buf_addr is computed from
bufq->tail
- read (gve_rx_dqo): the header is read from desc_idx (the completion
queue head index)
This relies on the buffer-queue index and the completion-queue index
being equal for the start of every packet, i.e. on the device consuming
posted buffers and returning completions in the exact same order. That
assumption does not hold once HW-GRO is enabled with multiple
flows: coalesced segments are accepted and completed in an order that
may differ from the order buffers were posted, and segments from
different flows may interleave.
That results in two problems:
- Wrong header slot on read. Because the read offset is derived from
the completion index (desc_idx) while the device wrote the header to
the address programmed for the buffer's buf_id, the driver can copy
a header belonging to a different packet. This shows up as
throughput drop (about 30% drop and large numbers of TCP
retransmissions) with header-split and HW-GRO both enabled and many
streams.
- Header buffer reused while still owned by the device. The driver
advances bufq->head by one per completion and re-posts buffers based
on that. Arrival of N RX completions only guarantees that at least N
RX buffer descriptors have been read by the device. It does not
guarantee that the device has relinquished the ownership of all the
buffers corresponding to those N descriptors. With out-of-order
completions (e.g. the completion for a packet copied into buffer N
arrives before the completion for a packet copied into buffer N-1),
the driver can re-post and overwrite a header buffer that the device
is still going to write into, corrupting the header of a packet
whose completion has not yet been processed.
Fix both issues by indexing the header buffer by buf_id on both the post
and read paths. Reading from buf_id's slot is therefore always correct
regardless of completion ordering (fixes problem 1).
Indexing by buf_id also ties each header slot to the lifetime of its
buffer state. A buffer state is only returned to the free/recycle lists
when its own completion (buf_id) is processed, so its header slot can
only be re-posted after the device is done with it. This makes header
slot reuse safe under out-of-order completions (fixes problem 2).
Allocate (gve_rx_alloc_hdr_bufs) and free (gve_rx_free_hdr_bufs) the
header buffers based on num_buf_states to match the buf_id indexing.
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; 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