<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="/static/style.xsl" type="text/xsl"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
  <id>https://vulnerability.circl.lu/rss/recent/all/10</id>
  <title>Most recent entries from all</title>
  <updated>2026-09-29T19:32:18.591752+00:00</updated>
  <author>
    <name>Vulnerability-Lookup</name>
    <email>info@circl.lu</email>
  </author>
  <link href="https://vulnerability.circl.lu" rel="alternate"/>
  <generator uri="https://lkiesow.github.io/python-feedgen" version="1.0.0">python-feedgen</generator>
  <subtitle>Contains only the most 10 recent entries.</subtitle>
  <entry>
    <id>https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/cve-2026-23300</id>
    <title>CVE-2026-23300 — net: ipv6: fix panic when IPv4 route references loopback IPv6 nexthop</title>
    <updated>2026-09-29T19:32:18.593988+00:00</updated>
    <content type="xhtml">
      <div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p><strong>Affected:</strong> Linux, Siemens SIMATIC S7-1500 CPU 1518-4 PN/DP MFP, Siemens SIMATIC S7-1500 CPU 1518F-4 PN/DP MFP, Siemens SIPLUS S7-1500 CPU 1518-4 PN/DP MFP</p>
<p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:</p>
<p>net: ipv6: fix panic when IPv4 route references loopback IPv6 nexthop</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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:</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>3. Standalone nexthop object ("ip -6 nexthop add id 100 dev lo"):
   RTF_REJECT is not set, takes normal path, fib_nh_co…</p></div>
    </content>
    <link href="https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/cve-2026-23300"/>
  </entry>
</feed>
