CVE-2026-45905 — linux / linux_kernel
Concurrent Execution using Shared Resource with Improper Synchronization ('Race Condition')In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
xfrm: fix ip_rt_bug race in icmp_route_lookup reverse path
icmp_route_lookup() performs multiple route lookups to find a suitable route for sending ICMP error messages, with special handling for XFRM (IPsec) policies.
The lookup sequence is:
- First, lookup output route for ICMP reply (dst = original src)
- Pass through xfrm_lookup() for policy check
- If blocked (-EPERM) or dst is not local, enter "reverse path"
- In reverse path, call xfrm_decode_session_reverse() to get fl4_dec which reverses the original packet's flow (saddr<->daddr swapped)
- If fl4_dec.saddr is local (we are the original destination), use __ip_route_output_key() for output route lookup
- If fl4_dec.saddr is NOT local (we are a forwarding node), use ip_route_input() to simulate the reverse packet's input path
- Finally, pass rt2 through xfrm_lookup() with XFRM_LOOKUP_ICMP flag
The bug occurs in step 6: ip_route_input() is called with fl4_dec.daddr (original packet's source) as destination. If this address becomes local between the initial check and ip_route_input() call (e.g., due to concurrent "ip addr add"), ip_route_input() returns a LOCAL route with dst.output set to ip_rt_bug.
This route is then used for ICMP output, causing dst_output() to call ip_rt_bug(), triggering a WARN_ON:
------------[ cut here ]------------ WARNING: net/ipv4/route.c:1275 at ip_rt_bug+0x21/0x30, CPU#1 Call Trace: <TASK> ip_push_pending_frames+0x202/0x240 icmp_push_reply+0x30d/0x430 __icmp_send+0x1149/0x24f0 ip_options_compile+0xa2/0xd0 ip_rcv_finish_core+0x829/0x1950 ip_rcv+0x2d7/0x420 __netif_receive_skb_one_core+0x185/0x1f0 netif_receive_skb+0x90/0x450 tun_get_user+0x3413/0x3fb0 tun_chr_write_iter+0xe4/0x220 ...
Fix this by checking rt2->rt_type after ip_route_input(). If it's RTN_LOCAL, the route cannot be used for output, so treat it as an error.
The reproducer requires kernel modification to widen the race window, making it unsuitable as a selftest. It is available at:
https://gist.github.com/mrpre/eae853b72ac6a750f5d45d64ddac1e81
| Software | From | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| linux / linux_kernel | 2.6.25 | 6.1.165 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.2 | 6.6.128 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.7 | 6.12.75 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.13 | 6.18.14 |
| linux / linux_kernel | 6.19 | 6.19.4 |
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/1c9ef28f643cce34a6a6c36c8f4d6d60a60db7e1
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/2c1f59005da9dd4b07b26984fd719e36557dc57c
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/423ce12d10b426709489d6b84fdaa6d2f31c5652
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/81b84de32bb27ae1ae2eb9acf0420e9d0d14bf00
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/9a95ec9144eeff1fc6fbcc21b677e322c6f1430b
- https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/b04061f89ffc6168e7ec3c71d0086ec3c3797228
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.