In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
qede: sync udp_tunnel ports outside qede_lock in the recovery path
A TX timeout on a qede NIC that has VXLAN/GENEVE tunnel ports
configured wedges the rtnetlink control plane of the whole machine:
NETDEV WATCHDOG: ens6f1 (qede): transmit queue 2 timed out 10226 ms
[qede_tx_timeout:586(ens6f1)]TX timeout on queue 2!
[qede_recovery_handler:2665(ens6f0)]Starting a recovery process
The recovery path deadlocks on the driver's own mutex:
qede_sp_task
rtnl_lock()
mutex_lock(&edev->qede_lock) <- taken
qede_recovery_handler
qede_load
udp_tunnel_nic_reset_ntf
__udp_tunnel_nic_device_sync
info->sync_table == qede_udp_tunnel_sync
mutex_lock(&edev->qede_lock) <- same task: deadlock
The mutex is not recursive, so the kworker blocks on itself with
rtnl_lock held, and neither lock is ever released. Every task that
calls rtnl_lock() afterwards (ip, ovs-vswitchd, lldpad, IPv6
addrconf, sshd) blocks forever while the node still answers ping.
In a vmcore from an affected production node rtnl_mutex.owner
decodes to the very kworker blocked at the innermost mutex_lock()
above.
Re-sync the tunnel ports from qede_sp_task() after the internal lock
is dropped, still under rtnl_lock as the udp_tunnel API requires.
This mirrors qede_open(), which calls udp_tunnel_nic_reset_ntf()
under rtnl without the internal lock.
qede_recovery_handler() now returns whether it has successfully
reloaded an open device, and the caller re-syncs the ports only in
that case. This keeps the old gating exactly: a device that was down
or a failed recovery returns false, as those paths never reached the
udp_tunnel_nic_reset_ntf() call before either.
This was the only user of the qede_lock()/qede_unlock() helpers, so
remove them.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.5): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.5 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.5 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.5% 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
- SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at low or medium mission impact; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 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 partial (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)14 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 partial (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