In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
net/smc: protect clcsock lifetime in smc_getname
smc_getname() dereferences smc->clcsock without holding
clcsock_release_lock. Link-group termination can release the CLC socket
through smc_close_active_abort() while the SMC socket is still open,
for example after shutdown(SHUT_WR).
A getsockname() caller can load smc->clcsock, then the termination worker
can clear the pointer and call sock_release() before the caller accesses
clcsock->ops or invokes getname(). This causes a use-after-free; if the
worker clears the pointer before the load, it causes a NULL dereference.
The syscall's file reference keeps the SMC socket alive but does not
prevent asynchronous release of its CLC socket.
KASAN reported the following with test-only timing instrumentation:
BUG: KASAN: slab-use-after-free in smc_getname+0x19e/0x1b0
Read of size 8 at addr ffff888109abb4e0 by task poc/103
Call Trace:
smc_getname+0x19e/0x1b0
do_getsockname+0xe5/0x170
__sys_getsockname+0x8c/0x100
Allocated by task 95:
sock_alloc_inode+0x1e/0x280
sock_alloc+0x3d/0x240
__sock_create+0x7e/0x430
smc_create+0x121/0x240
Freed by task 0:
kmem_cache_free+0xcc/0x340
rcu_core+0x50a/0x1850
Last potentially related work creation:
evict+0x446/0x6c0
smc_clcsock_release+0xa8/0xd0
smc_close_active_abort+0x26a/0x3a0
__smc_lgr_terminate.part.0+0x137/0x2e0
Hold clcsock_release_lock across the pointer check and the getname()
callback to serialize with smc_clcsock_release(). Return -EBADF if the
CLC socket has already been released, preserving the existing peer
state check and the callback's return value otherwise.
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
- 0.2% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-11-12). 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, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: 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 (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from 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.
The score's inputs: 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