In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
sunrpc: pin svc_xprt across the asynchronous TLS handshake callback
svc_tcp_handshake() stores the raw svc_xprt pointer in
tls_handshake_args.ta_data and submits the request through
tls_server_hello_x509(). The handshake core takes only
sock_hold(req->hr_sk); nothing references the embedding struct
svc_sock that svc_tcp_handshake_done() reaches via container_of().
Two close races leave the in-flight callback writing through a freed
svc_sock. svc_sock_free() calls tls_handshake_cancel() and discards
its return value: a false return means handshake_complete() has
already set HANDSHAKE_F_REQ_COMPLETED but hp_done() may not have
finished, yet svc_sock_free() proceeds to kfree(svsk). The
cancel-loser fall-through inside svc_tcp_handshake() itself produces
the same window: when wait_for_completion_interruptible_timeout()
returns <= 0 (timeout or signal) and tls_handshake_cancel() returns
false, the function does not drain, returns, and svc_handle_xprt()
calls svc_xprt_received(), which clears XPT_BUSY and can drop the
last reference. A concurrent close then runs svc_sock_free() while
svc_tcp_handshake_done() is still updating xpt_flags and walking
svsk->sk_handshake_done.
The corruption surfaces as set_bit/clear_bit RMW into the freed
xpt_flags slab slot and as complete_all() walking and writing the
freed wait_queue_head_t list embedded in sk_handshake_done -- a
slab-corruption primitive, not a benign read. The path is reachable
on any TLS-enabled NFS server whenever a connection close overlaps
the tlshd downcall delivery window; the interruptible wait means
signal delivery suffices, not just SVC_HANDSHAKE_TO expiry.
Take svc_xprt_get(xprt) immediately before tls_server_hello_x509()
so the in-flight callback owns its own reference. Release it on the
two edges where the callback is guaranteed not to fire -- submission
failure from tls_server_hello_x509() and a successful
tls_handshake_cancel() -- and at the tail of
svc_tcp_handshake_done() after complete_all().
[cel: rewrote commit message to describe the actual change]
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; 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