CVE-2026-64122
Is CVE-2026-64122 real, exploitable, or a false positive? Here's the community verdict.
signals
public sources
High CVSS base score, but low real-world exploitation probability (EPSS). Likely less urgent than the score implies.
baseline read
auto · not a community verdict
Real, but low real-world risk
A genuine vulnerability on paper, but EPSS shows little real-world exploitation — the base score may overstate urgency. This is not the same as a false positive.
Based on CVSS · FIRST EPSS
Confirm or dispute →CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net/mlx5e: Fix use-after-free in mlx5e_tx_reporter_timeout_recover mlx5e_tx_reporter_timeout_recover() accesses sq->netdev after mlx5e_safe_reopen_channels() has torn down and freed the channel (and its embedded SQs). Replace the three sq->netdev references with priv->netdev which is safe because priv outlives channel teardown. The netdev_err() call already used priv->netdev for this reason; make the trylock/unlock and health_channel_eq_recover calls consistent. This fixes the following KASAN splat: BUG: KASAN: use-after-free in mlx5e_tx_reporter_timeout_recover+0x1dd/0x360 [mlx5_core] Read of size 8 at addr ffff889860ed0b28 by task kworker/u113:2/5277 Call Trace: mlx5e_tx_reporter_timeout_recover+0x1dd/0x360 [mlx5_core] devlink_health_reporter_recover+0xa2/0x150 devlink_health_report+0x254/0x7c0 mlx5e_reporter_tx_timeout+0x297/0x380 [mlx5_core] mlx5e_tx_timeout_work+0x109/0x170 [mlx5_core] process_one_work+0x677/0xf20 worker_thread+0x51f/0xd90 kthread+0x3a5/0x810 ret_from_fork+0x208/0x400 ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30
References
Published
Embed this verdict
[](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64122)<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64122"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-64122/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-64122"></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 verdictsCurated baseline: A curated baseline from public sources, shown separately from community verdicts.
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.
- 0
This scores high on paper (CVSS 9.8) but the real-world signal is low. It is not in CISA KEV and no public exploit was found, and near-term exploitation looks unlikely (EPSS about 0%). Verify your own exposure before treating it as urgent. It is reachable over the network with no authentication and no user interaction, which is the most dangerous profile. Not an emergency for most teams, but patch it in your normal cycle and check whether the affected component is actually exposed in your setup.