IT

Tracker / CVE-2026-23300

CVE-2026-23300

Medium 5.5

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net: ipv6: fix panic when IPv4 route references loopback IPv6 nexthop When a standalone IPv6 nexthop object is created with a loopback device (e.g., "ip -6 nexthop add id 100 dev lo"), fib6_nh_init() misclassifies it as a reject route. This is because nexthop objects have no destination prefix (fc_dst=::), causing fib6_is_reject() to match any loopback nexthop. The reject path skips fib_nh_common_init(), leaving nhc_pcpu_rth_output unallocated. If an IPv4 route later references this nexthop, __mkroute_output() dereferences NULL nhc_pcpu_rth_output and panics. Simplify the check in fib6_nh_init() to only match explicit reject routes (RTF_REJECT) instead of using fib6_is_reject(). The loopback promotion heuristic in fib6_is_reject() is handled separately by ip6_route_info_create_nh(). After this change, the three cases behave as follows: 1. Explicit reject route ("ip -6 route add unreachable 2001:db8::/64"): RTF_REJECT is set, enters reject path, skips fib_nh_common_init(). No behavior change. 2. Implicit loopback reject route ("ip -6 route add 2001:db8::/32 dev lo"): RTF_REJECT is not set, takes normal path, fib_nh_common_init() is called. ip6_route_info_create_nh() still promotes it to reject afterward. nhc_pcpu_rth_output is allocated but unused, which is harmless. 3. Standalone nexthop object ("ip -6 nexthop add id 100 dev lo"): RTF_REJECT is not set, takes normal path, fib_nh_common_init() is called. nhc_pcpu_rth_output is properly allocated, fixing the crash when IPv4 routes reference this nexthop.

Affected products and versions

linux linux_kernel
linux linux_kernel · 5.11 → 5.15.203
linux linux_kernel · 5.16 → 6.1.167
linux linux_kernel · 5.3 → 5.10.253
linux linux_kernel · 6.13 → 6.18.17
linux linux_kernel · 6.19 → 6.19.7
linux linux_kernel · 6.2 → 6.6.130
linux linux_kernel · 6.7 → 6.12.77

Analysis

This page is not indexable yet.Until it carries original analysis — what it actually exposes, how to check in two minutes whether a system was touched, what to do if it was — the page stays noindex. The database decides that, not the template.

References