In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
net/smc: fix TOCTOU race between smc_listen_out() and listener close
smc_listen_out() reads lsmc->sk.sk_state without the listener lock,
then acquires lock_sock_nested() only after the check passes. This
opens a window where smc_close_active() can transition the listener
to SMC_CLOSED, call smc_close_cleanup_listen() to drain the accept
queue, and release the lock, all between the lockless read and the
delayed lock acquisition:
smc_listen_work (smc_hs_wq) smc_close_active()
------------------------------- -------------------------
release_sock(child)
if (sk_state == SMC_LISTEN) TRUE
lock_sock(listener)
sk_state = SMC_CLOSED
smc_close_cleanup_listen()
release_sock(listener)
flush_work(tcp_listen_work)
lock_sock_nested(listener)
smc_accept_enqueue(listener, child) /* child enqueued on dead listener */
smc_close_active() flushes only tcp_listen_work. Work items already
dispatched onto smc_hs_wq for the CLC handshake continue running
unguarded. smc_accept_enqueue() takes a sock_hold() on the child that
is never released, so the child smc_sock, its clcsock, and the
reference all leak. A remote peer that opens TCP connections while the
server calls close() can exhaust kernel memory.
Move lock_sock_nested() to before the sk_state check so that the test
and the enqueue are atomic under the listener lock.
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 2026-10-30). 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