In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
bpf: tcp: Fix use-after-free in bpf_iter_tcp_established_batch()
reqsk_queue_hash_req() publishes a TCP_NEW_SYN_RECV request_sock onto
the ehash chain, drops the bucket lock, and only afterwards sets
rsk_refcnt to 3.
Lockless readers such as __inet_lookup_established() handle this with
refcount_inc_not_zero(), but bpf_iter_tcp_established_batch() uses plain
sock_hold() while holding the bucket lock, on the assumption that the
lock guarantees sk_refcnt > 0. That assumption does not hold for
request_sock:
CPU 0 CPU 1
----- -----
tcp_conn_request()
reqsk_queue_hash_req()
inet_ehash_insert(req)
spin_lock(bucket)
__sk_nulls_add_node_rcu(req) // rsk_refcnt == 0
spin_unlock(bucket)
bpf_iter_tcp_established_batch()
spin_lock(bucket)
sock_hold(req) <-- addition on 0
spin_unlock(bucket)
refcount_set(&req->rsk_refcnt, 3) // clobbers saturated value
which surfaces as:
refcount_t: addition on 0; use-after-free.
WARNING: lib/refcount.c:25 at refcount_warn_saturate+0x48/0x90, CPU#1
Call Trace:
bpf_iter_tcp_established_batch+0x14e/0x170
bpf_iter_tcp_batch+0x53/0x200
bpf_iter_tcp_seq_next+0x27/0x70
bpf_seq_read+0x107/0x410
vfs_read+0xb9/0x380
The iterator's stolen reference is lost when the publishing CPU's
refcount_set() overwrites the count, leaving the socket one reference
short. When the last legitimate owner drops its reference the reqsk is
freed while still reachable, leading to use-after-free.
This reproduces in seconds with tcp_syncookies=0, a handful of threads
doing connect()/close() to a local listener while others read an
iter/tcp link in a tight loop.
Use refcount_inc_not_zero() and skip the socket on failure. A skipped
socket is still part of the bucket, so keep counting it in expected.
The reallocations are sized from expected, and a request sock whose
refcount gets published while the lock is held across the last realloc
must already have room.
A skipped socket is counted in expected but never batched, so end_sk
can be short of expected on a batch that is actually complete. Decide
completeness by whether the walk left any socket behind instead. The
WARN after the locked realloc checks the same, replacing an
end_sk == expected check that could not hold on that path since
commit cdec67a489d4 ("bpf: tcp: Make sure iter->batch always
contains a full bucket snapshot").
If every matching socket in a bucket is mid-init (refcount 0), end_sk
stays 0. Advance to the next bucket rather than returning a batch entry
that was never filled this round.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.8 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.1% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-28). 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 (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (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)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 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