CVE-2026-74620
CVE CVE-2026-74620EUVD EUVD-2026-64557Published 2026-08-22T15:32:04.000ZLast changed 2026-08-23T12:47:46.000Z
What the advisory describes
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net/sched: act_gact, act_police: range check the fallback control action tcf_action_check_ctrlact() range checks the primary control action: if (!opcode) ret = action > TC_ACT_VALUE_MAX ? -EINVAL : 0; TC_ACT_VALUE_MAX is TC_ACT_TRAP, so kernel-internal verdicts above it cannot be set that way. But act_gact and act_police each carry a second, independent control action supplied by user space that never reaches that helper - TCA_GACT_PROB.paction and TCA_POLICE_RESULT. Both only reject TC_ACT_GOTO_CHAIN, so any other value is stored verbatim and returned verbatim from the action. In particular user space can store TC_ACT_CONSUMED, which is TC_ACT_VALUE_MAX + 1 and is deliberately not part of the UAPI value range. That verdict tells every caller the action took ownership of the skb, so nobody frees it: sch_handle_ingress(), sch_handle_egress() and tcf_qevent_handle() all deliberately skip the free for it. The result is one leaked sk_buff plus its data buffer per packet traversing the filter, unbounded, for all traffic on the chain including kernel-generated packets. Both are trivially deterministic. act_gact clamps tcfg_pval to >= 1, so with pval = 1 gact_determ() returns the fallback for every packet. act_police has no mandatory rate, so rate = 0 leaves tcfp_mtu = ~0 and tcf_police_mtu_check() always passes. TC_ACT_CONSUMED was added by commit 720f22fed81b ("net: sched: refactor reinsert action"), after both goto-chain guards were written: commit 9469f375ab09 ("net/sched: act_gact: disallow 'goto chain' on fallback control action") and commit c08f5ed5d625 ("net/sched: act_police: disallow 'goto chain' on fallback control action"). Neither guard was widened when the new verdict appeared. Factor the existing range test out of tcf_action_check_ctrlact() as tcf_action_valid() and apply it to both fallbacks. The helper cannot call tcf_action_check_ctrlact() directly because that also allocates a goto_chain, which is exactly what these two sites must not do. Reproduced on v7.2-rc6: kmemleak reports one leaked 232-byte skbuff_head_cache object plus its 704-byte data buffer per packet. With this patch both configurations are rejected with -EINVAL and kmemleak reports none.
Source: EUVD (ENISA), in the words of the advisory.
Products the advisory names
These come from the advisory itself, not from any check we performed.
- Linux — Linux patch: 6.18.45; patch: 7.1.9; 720f22fed81bc6fd1765db7014651b6718887bea <5f038affdacaffedf6a85a06cf59ec0a852d36a7; 720f22fed81bc6fd1765db7014651b6718887bea <92f00f1d4d204a428b38e26fce3baee144b6955d; 5.3; 720f22fed81bc6fd1765db7014651b6718887bea <883b56ae58fe657d8497806c7059646e9ba6dbd0; 720f22fed81bc6fd1765db7014651b6718887bea <5344e01179baa37547ab29fd7b8614f83faa190c; patch: 0; patch: 6.1.183; patch: 5.10.266; patch: 5.15.216; 720f22fed81bc6fd1765db7014651b6718887bea <efa58aeb6a99028b1fbc3ab2f31ba3a881211ad4; 720f22fed81bc6fd1765db7014651b6718887bea <725efc2ab4a40affc4e285a2dc4896d103948a6c; 720f22fed81bc6fd1765db7014651b6718887bea <6bcb8839aa2d686964a4154650afc4db91e1c514; patch: 6.12.104; patch: 6.6.152; patch: 7.2; 720f22fed81bc6fd1765db7014651b6718887bea <2e8df8c9190335475a3b64a159d3efd8cdd1cb73
The versions shown are the advisory's own. Patchlage compares no version numbers and derives no judgement from them — which version is installed is something a person has to look up.
Carried in the product catalogue
An estate covering these products can be recorded in Patchlage. An advisory about them appears in the next morning's situation report.
- Linux — Linux
Does this concern one of your customers?
This page cannot answer that — it does not know your estate. Whoever has recorded their environments gets the answer the morning after publication, together with a paragraph they can forward to the customer unedited.
Try it for 28 daysPatchlage reports hits and suspected hits. About everything else this system says nothing — neither this page nor the situation report ever claims that an estate is safe.