In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
mptcp: pm: fix memory leak from alloc-during-teardown race
mptcp_pm_destroy() empties msk->pm.anno_list and
msk->pm.userspace_pm_local_addr_list under msk->pm.lock during socket
teardown, dropping the lock between the two.
A concurrent userspace PM genl ANNOUNCE on the same msk holds a sock
reference via mptcp_token_get_sock() and, in
mptcp_pm_nl_announce_doit(), calls
mptcp_userspace_pm_append_new_local_addr() and
mptcp_pm_announced_alloc(). Both take msk->pm.lock briefly to add to
their respective lists. Because the genl handler holds a sock reference,
mptcp_pm_destroy() may run on the same msk via mptcp_disconnect(), which
invokes mptcp_destroy_common() without dropping the sock refcount,
before the handler completes.
If the lock acquisitions interleave such that mptcp_pm_destroy() empties
a list first, the later alloc adds its entry to a list head that nothing
else iterates for this msk, and the entry leaks. kmemleak reports both
mptcp_pm_add_addr objects (from mptcp_pm_announced_alloc()) and
mptcp_pm_addr_entry objects (from
mptcp_userspace_pm_append_new_local_addr()) under sustained concurrent
ANNOUNCE + close load against the userspace PM.
Add an MPTCP_PM_DESTROYING bit in msk->pm.status, set by
mptcp_pm_destroy() under pm.lock before the lists are emptied and
checked under pm.lock by the alloc paths. Either the alloc takes pm.lock
first, in which case its entry is on the list when mptcp_pm_destroy()
frees it; or mptcp_pm_destroy() takes pm.lock first, in which case the
later alloc observes the bit and refuses.
Found by an MPTCP protocol-flow harness extending BRF (arXiv:2305.08782).
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
- EG Severity
- Not assessed: no CVSS publishedA missing CVSS is not a severity of zero.
- EG Likelihood
- 0.2% 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
- No SSVC decision: EchelonGraph has not assessed this CVECISA 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 BOD 26-04 block below.
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's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). Where an input reads “CISA's BOD 26-04 default”, no one has published it for this CVE, and CISA's implementation guidance says: “If “Automatable” and “Technical Impact” information items about a CVE ID are not available and the CVE ID is not in the KEV Catalog, CISA will treat its values as “no” and “total,” respectively, until CISA or a third party provides metadata about the CVE ID. CISA will always provide the Vulnrichment data for a CVE ID listed in the KEV Catalog.” 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