Skip to main content
VulnerabilityPublished Updated

CVE-2024-26740: Linux kernel · net/sched: act_mirred: use the backlog for mirred ingress

Affects Linux kernelSource GCVE Database

0
Compare

Not known to be exploited.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 13:33 UTC

Severity
Unrated

Rated by Threat Radar · No CVSS score from NVD or the CNA

Thin evidence

One scorer or none

Exploitation evidence

  1. Disclosed: evidence found.

    CVE published 3 Apr 2024

  2. Detectable: no evidence on record.

    No public nuclei template indexed

  3. Weaponized: no evidence on record.

    No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB

  4. Exploited in the wild: no evidence on record.

    Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation

  5. Observed by OffSeq Mirage: no evidence on record.

    No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 30 Oct 2026.

Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net/sched: act_mirred: use the backlog for mirred ingress The test Davide added in commit ca22da2fbd69 ("act_mirred: use the backlog for nested calls to mirred ingress") hangs our testing VMs every 10 or so runs, with the familiar tcp_v4_rcv -> tcp_v4_rcv deadlock reported by lockdep. The problem as previously described by Davide (see Link) is that if we reverse flow of traffic with the redirect (egress -> ingress) we may reach the same socket which generated the packet. And we may still be holding its socket lock. The common solution to such deadlocks is to put the packet in the Rx backlog, rather than run the Rx path inline. Do that for all egress -> ingress reversals, not just once we started to nest mirred calls. In the past there was a concern that the backlog indirection will lead to loss of error reporting / less accurate stats. But the current workaround does not seem to address the issue.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…