CVE-2026-43194 — linux / linux_kernel
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
net: consume xmit errors of GSO frames
udpgro_frglist.sh and udpgro_bench.sh are the flakiest tests currently in NIPA. They fail in the same exact way, TCP GRO test stalls occasionally and the test gets killed after 10min.
These tests use veth to simulate GRO. They attach a trivial ("return XDP_PASS;") XDP program to the veth to force TSO off and NAPI on.
Digging into the failure mode we can see that the connection is completely stuck after a burst of drops. The sender's snd_nxt is at sequence number N [1], but the receiver claims to have received (rcv_nxt) up to N + 3 * MSS [2]. Last piece of the puzzle is that senders rtx queue is not empty (let's say the block in the rtx queue is at sequence number N - 4 * MSS [3]).
In this state, sender sends a retransmission from the rtx queue with a single segment, and sequence numbers N-4MSS:N-3MSS [3]. Receiver sees it and responds with an ACK all the way up to N + 3 * MSS [2]. But sender will reject this ack as TCP_ACK_UNSENT_DATA because it has no recollection of ever sending data that far out [1]. And we are stuck.
The root cause is the mess of the xmit return codes. veth returns an error when it can't xmit a frame. We end up with a loss event like this:
| GSO super frame 1 | GSO super frame 2 | |-----------------------------------------------| | seg | seg | seg | seg | seg | seg | seg | seg | | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
x ok ok <ok>| ok ok ok <x>
\\
snd_nxt
"x" means packet lost by veth, and "ok" means it went thru. Since veth has TSO disabled in this test it sees individual segments. Segment 1 is on the retransmit queue and will be resent.
So why did the sender not advance snd_nxt even tho it clearly did send up to seg 8? tcp_write_xmit() interprets the return code from the core to mean that data has not been sent at all. Since TCP deals with GSO super frames, not individual segment the crux of the problem is that loss of a single segment can be interpreted as loss of all. TCP only sees the last return code for the last segment of the GSO frame (in <> brackets in the diagram above).
Of course for the problem to occur we need a setup or a device without a Qdisc. Otherwise Qdisc layer disconnects the protocol layer from the device errors completely.
We have multiple ways to fix this.
-
make veth not return an error when it lost a packet. While this is what I think we did in the past, the issue keeps reappearing and it's annoying to debug. The game of whack a mole is not great.
-
fix the damn return codes We only talk about NETDEV_TX_OK and NETDEV_TX_BUSY in the documentation, so maybe we should make the return code from ndo_start_xmit() a boolean. I like that the most, but perhaps some ancient, not-really-networking protocol would suffer.
-
make TCP ignore the errors It is not entirely clear to me what benefit TCP gets from interpreting the result of ip_queue_xmit()? Specifically once the connection is established and we're pushing data - packet loss is just packet loss?
-
this fix Ignore the rc in the Qdisc-less+GSO case, since it's unreliable. We already always return OK in the TCQ_F_CAN_BYPASS case. In the Qdisc-less case let's be a bit more conservative and only mask the GSO errors. This path is taken by non-IP-"networks" like CAN, MCTP etc, so we could regress some ancient thing. This is the simplest, but also maybe the hackiest fix?
Similar fix has been proposed by Eric in the past but never committed because original reporter was working with an OOT driver and wasn't providing feedback (see Link).
| Software | From | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| linux / linux_kernel | 3.18 | 5.10.252 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 5.11 | 5.15.202 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 5.16 | 6.1.165 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.2 | 6.6.128 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.7 | 6.12.75 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.13 | 6.18.16 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.19 | 6.19.6 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 7.0-rc1 | 7.0-rc1.x |
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/0c9de092ef8c50a7ee9612811566f0aa81d8d7b6
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/4cb163e9efcac4cd35c3043e097f25081a5c015c
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/56bd32c0edca34041a5c215887fcf562fae2e2db
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/7aa767d0d3d04e50ae94e770db7db8197f666970
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/9ac6aebef4b4bfc5ed408b0b65645981574bc780
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/ae3f627b45fbc3c776a4e484696f3cad7cbb4eca
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/c86901d22c89a6bf4e2f013e948aaabc60869893
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/ea5d7787635e26ec1194ec7eec0e8e5ae3bd10a5
Deep Security Visibility Without the Complexity
SynScan provides clear, real-time security insights so you can monitor your attack surface, spot risks early, and act fast—without extra complexity.
- No setup fees
- 5-min deployment
- Cancel anytime
Frequently Asked Questions
A security vulnerability is a weakness in software, hardware, or configuration that can be exploited to compromise confidentiality, integrity, or availability. Many vulnerabilities are tracked as CVEs (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures), which provide a standardized identifier so teams can coordinate patching, mitigation, and risk assessment across tools and vendors.
CVSS (Common Vulnerability Scoring System) estimates technical severity, but it doesn't automatically equal business risk. Prioritize using context like internet exposure, affected asset criticality, known exploitation (proof-of-concept or in-the-wild), and whether compensating controls exist. A "Medium" CVSS on an exposed, production system can be more urgent than a "Critical" on an isolated, non-production host.
A vulnerability is the underlying weakness. An exploit is the method or code used to take advantage of it. A zero-day is a vulnerability that is unknown to the vendor or has no publicly available fix when attackers begin using it. In practice, risk increases sharply when exploitation becomes reliable or widespread.
Recurring findings usually come from incomplete Asset Discovery, inconsistent patch management, inherited images, and configuration drift. In modern environments, you also need to watch the software supply chain: dependencies, containers, build pipelines, and third-party services can reintroduce the same weakness even after you patch a single host. Unknown or unmanaged assets (often called Shadow IT) are a common reason the same issues resurface.
Use a simple, repeatable triage model: focus first on externally exposed assets, high-value systems (identity, VPN, email, production), vulnerabilities with known exploits, and issues that enable remote code execution or privilege escalation. Then enforce patch SLAs and track progress using consistent metrics so remediation is steady, not reactive.
SynScan combines attack surface monitoring and continuous security auditing to keep your inventory current, flag high-impact vulnerabilities early, and help you turn raw findings into a practical remediation plan.