Skip to content

CVE-2026-22979

Is CVE-2026-22979 real, exploitable, or a false positive? Here's the community verdict.

signals

public sources

Exploited in wild
Not listed
CISA KEV
Public exploit
None known
Metasploit/EDB/PoC
Base severity
5.5 Medium
CVSS
Exploitation prob.
0.1%
FIRST EPSS
Weakness
CWE-401
CWE

Moderate signals. Triage by your actual exposure and reachability.

baseline read

auto · not a community verdict

Low signal — verdict needed

Few public signals point to active risk. Whether a scanner hit here is a true or false positive depends on your version and config — community verdicts decide.

Based on CVSS · FIRST EPSS

Confirm or dispute →

CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net: fix memory leak in skb_segment_list for GRO packets When skb_segment_list() is called during packet forwarding, it handles packets that were aggregated by the GRO engine. Historically, the segmentation logic in skb_segment_list assumes that individual segments are split from a parent SKB and may need to carry their own socket memory accounting. Accordingly, the code transfers truesize from the parent to the newly created segments. Prior to commit ed4cccef64c1 ("gro: fix ownership transfer"), this truesize subtraction in skb_segment_list() was valid because fragments still carry a reference to the original socket. However, commit ed4cccef64c1 ("gro: fix ownership transfer") changed this behavior by ensuring that fraglist entries are explicitly orphaned (skb->sk = NULL) to prevent illegal orphaning later in the stack. This change meant that the entire socket memory charge remained with the head SKB, but the corresponding accounting logic in skb_segment_list() was never updated. As a result, the current code unconditionally adds each fragment's truesize to delta_truesize and subtracts it from the parent SKB. Since the fragments are no longer charged to the socket, this subtraction results in an effective under-count of memory when the head is freed. This causes sk_wmem_alloc to remain non-zero, preventing socket destruction and leading to a persistent memory leak. The leak can be observed via KMEMLEAK when tearing down the networking environment: unreferenced object 0xffff8881e6eb9100 (size 2048): comm "ping", pid 6720, jiffies 4295492526 backtrace: kmem_cache_alloc_noprof+0x5c6/0x800 sk_prot_alloc+0x5b/0x220 sk_alloc+0x35/0xa00 inet6_create.part.0+0x303/0x10d0 __sock_create+0x248/0x640 __sys_socket+0x11b/0x1d0 Since skb_segment_list() is exclusively used for SKB_GSO_FRAGLIST packets constructed by GRO, the truesize adjustment is removed. The call to skb_release_head_state() must be preserved. As documented in commit cf673ed0e057 ("net: fix fraglist segmentation reference count leak"), it is still required to correctly drop references to SKB extensions that may be overwritten during __copy_skb_header().

Published

Embed this verdict
TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-22979
Markdown
[![TruePositive verdict](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-22979/badge.svg)](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-22979)
HTML
<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-22979"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-22979/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-22979"></a>

Live badge that updates automatically as the community verdict changes.

Community ground truth

Be the first practitioner to weigh in

So far this is only TruePositive's editorial baseline from public sources. Add your real-world verdict below — it becomes the signal the next person triaging this relies on.

🥇 The first 50 practitioners to contribute earn a Founding Contributor badge.

In your experience, is this finding real and exploitable?

awaiting field verdicts
Real, but not a risk here
Not a real issue

No account needed. Anonymous verdicts post as an unverified signal. Log in to make yours verified and earn reputation.

Field notes & remediation

Verdicts are the quick signal. Notes are the evidence and fixes behind them.

No notes yet. Be the first to share what you saw, or a fix that worked.

    Add a field note or remediationoptional
    Note type

    What are you adding?

    Markdown supported · minimum 20 characters.

    Same weakness: CWE-401.