In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
net: dst_metadata: fix false-positive memcpy overflow in tun_dst_unclone
kmalloc_flex() in metadata_dst_alloc() sets __counted_by for the
structure to the options_len, which is then initialized to zero.
Later, we're initializing the structure by copying the tunnel info
together with the options, and this triggers a warning for a potential
memcpy overflow, since the compiler estimates that the options can't
fit into the structure, even though the memory for them is actually
allocated.
memcpy: detected buffer overflow: 104 byte write of buffer size 96
WARNING: CPU: X PID: Y at lib/string_helpers.c:1036 __fortify_report
skb_tunnel_info_unclone+0x179/0x190
geneve_xmit+0x7fe/0xe00
The issue is triggered when built with clang and source fortification.
Fix that by doing the copy in two stages: first - the main data with
the options_len, then the options. This way the correct length should
be known at the time of the copy.
It would be better if the options_len never changed after allocation,
but the allocation code is a little separate from the initialization
and it would be awkward and potentially dangerous to return a struct
with options_len set to a non-zero value from the metadata_dst_alloc().
Another option would be to use ip_tunnel_info_opts_set(), but it is
doing too many unnecessary operations for the use case here.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (8.2): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 8.2 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 8.2 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 2026-10-24). 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