In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
tcp: defer md5sig_info kfree past RCU grace period in tcp_connect
The md5+ao reconciliation in tcp_connect() (net/ipv4/tcp_output.c)
has two symmetric branches:
if (needs_md5) {
tcp_ao_destroy_sock(sk, false);
} else if (needs_ao) {
tcp_clear_md5_list(sk);
kfree(rcu_replace_pointer(tp->md5sig_info, NULL, ...));
}
Both branches free a per-socket auth-info object while the socket is
in TCP_SYN_SENT and is already on the inet ehash (inserted by
inet_hash_connect() in tcp_v4_connect()). Both branches are reachable
by softirq RX-path readers that load the corresponding info pointer
via implicit RCU before bh_lock_sock_nested() is taken.
The needs_md5 branch is fixed in the prior patch by re-introducing
the call_rcu() free in tcp_ao_destroy_sock(): the equivalent per-key
loop runs inside tcp_ao_info_free_rcu(), the RCU callback, so by the
time it frees each tcp_ao_key all softirq readers that captured the
container have already completed rcu_read_unlock().
The needs_ao branch is not symmetric in the same way. The container
free can be deferred via kfree_rcu(md5sig, rcu) -- struct
tcp_md5sig_info already has the required rcu member
(include/net/tcp.h:1999-2002), and the rest of the tree already does
this in the tcp_md5sig_info_add() rollback paths
(net/ipv4/tcp_ipv4.c:1410, 1436). But the per-key teardown is done
by tcp_clear_md5_list() in process context BEFORE the container's
RCU grace period: it walks &md5sig->head and frees each
tcp_md5sig_key with bare hlist_del + kfree. A concurrent softirq
reader in __tcp_md5_do_lookup() / __tcp_md5_do_lookup_exact()
(tcp_ipv4.c:1253, 1298) walks the same list via
hlist_for_each_entry_rcu() and races with that bare kfree on the
keys themselves -- a per-key slab use-after-free of the same class
as the TCP-AO bug, on the same race window.
Fix this in two halves:
- Convert the bare kfree() in tcp_connect() to kfree_rcu() so the
md5sig_info container joins the rest of the md5sig lifecycle.
The local-variable lift is mechanical and required because
kfree_rcu() is a macro that expects an lvalue.
- Make tcp_clear_md5_list() RCU-safe by replacing hlist_del +
kfree(key) with hlist_del_rcu + kfree_rcu(key, rcu). struct
tcp_md5sig_key already carries the rcu member
(include/net/tcp.h:1995) and tcp_md5_do_del()
(net/ipv4/tcp_ipv4.c:1456) already uses kfree_rcu, so this
restores the lifecycle invariant the rest of the file follows
rather than introducing a one-off.
The other caller of tcp_clear_md5_list() is tcp_md5_destruct_sock()
(net/ipv4/tcp.c:412), which runs from the sock destructor when the
socket is already unhashed and unreachable; the extra grace period
there is unnecessary but harmless. Making the helper unconditionally
RCU-safe is the cleaner contract.
The needs_ao branch is not reachable by the userns reproducer used
to demonstrate the AO-side splat (the repro installs both keys but
ends up in the needs_md5 branch because the connect peer matches
the MD5 key, not the AO key); however the symmetric race exists
and a maintainer touching this code should not have to think about
which branch escapes RCU and which one does not.
[also credits to Qihang, who found that this races with tcp-diag]
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 2026-10-18). 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