GHSA-Q4XX-RWJ3-JF4M
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-02-14 18:30 – Updated: 2026-02-14 18:30In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
ipv6: Fix ECMP sibling count mismatch when clearing RTF_ADDRCONF
syzbot reported a kernel BUG in fib6_add_rt2node() when adding an IPv6 route. [0]
Commit f72514b3c569 ("ipv6: clear RA flags when adding a static route") introduced logic to clear RTF_ADDRCONF from existing routes when a static route with the same nexthop is added. However, this causes a problem when the existing route has a gateway.
When RTF_ADDRCONF is cleared from a route that has a gateway, that route becomes eligible for ECMP, i.e. rt6_qualify_for_ecmp() returns true. The issue is that this route was never added to the fib6_siblings list.
This leads to a mismatch between the following counts:
-
The sibling count computed by iterating fib6_next chain, which includes the newly ECMP-eligible route
-
The actual siblings in fib6_siblings list, which does not include that route
When a subsequent ECMP route is added, fib6_add_rt2node() hits BUG_ON(sibling->fib6_nsiblings != rt->fib6_nsiblings) because the counts don't match.
Fix this by only clearing RTF_ADDRCONF when the existing route does not have a gateway. Routes without a gateway cannot qualify for ECMP anyway (rt6_qualify_for_ecmp() requires fib_nh_gw_family), so clearing RTF_ADDRCONF on them is safe and matches the original intent of the commit.
[0]: kernel BUG at net/ipv6/ip6_fib.c:1217! Oops: invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] SMP KASAN PTI CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 6010 Comm: syz.0.17 Not tainted syzkaller #0 PREEMPT(full) Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS Google 10/25/2025 RIP: 0010:fib6_add_rt2node+0x3433/0x3470 net/ipv6/ip6_fib.c:1217 [...] Call Trace: fib6_add+0x8da/0x18a0 net/ipv6/ip6_fib.c:1532 __ip6_ins_rt net/ipv6/route.c:1351 [inline] ip6_route_add+0xde/0x1b0 net/ipv6/route.c:3946 ipv6_route_ioctl+0x35c/0x480 net/ipv6/route.c:4571 inet6_ioctl+0x219/0x280 net/ipv6/af_inet6.c:577 sock_do_ioctl+0xdc/0x300 net/socket.c:1245 sock_ioctl+0x576/0x790 net/socket.c:1366 vfs_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:51 [inline] __do_sys_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:597 [inline] __se_sys_ioctl+0xfc/0x170 fs/ioctl.c:583 do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:63 [inline] do_syscall_64+0xfa/0xf80 arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:94 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x77/0x7f
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-23200"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-02-14T17:15:57Z",
"severity": null
},
"details": "In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:\n\nipv6: Fix ECMP sibling count mismatch when clearing RTF_ADDRCONF\n\nsyzbot reported a kernel BUG in fib6_add_rt2node() when adding an IPv6\nroute. [0]\n\nCommit f72514b3c569 (\"ipv6: clear RA flags when adding a static\nroute\") introduced logic to clear RTF_ADDRCONF from existing routes\nwhen a static route with the same nexthop is added. However, this\ncauses a problem when the existing route has a gateway.\n\nWhen RTF_ADDRCONF is cleared from a route that has a gateway, that\nroute becomes eligible for ECMP, i.e. rt6_qualify_for_ecmp() returns\ntrue. The issue is that this route was never added to the\nfib6_siblings list.\n\nThis leads to a mismatch between the following counts:\n\n- The sibling count computed by iterating fib6_next chain, which\n includes the newly ECMP-eligible route\n\n- The actual siblings in fib6_siblings list, which does not include\n that route\n\nWhen a subsequent ECMP route is added, fib6_add_rt2node() hits\nBUG_ON(sibling-\u003efib6_nsiblings != rt-\u003efib6_nsiblings) because the\ncounts don\u0027t match.\n\nFix this by only clearing RTF_ADDRCONF when the existing route does\nnot have a gateway. Routes without a gateway cannot qualify for ECMP\nanyway (rt6_qualify_for_ecmp() requires fib_nh_gw_family), so clearing\nRTF_ADDRCONF on them is safe and matches the original intent of the\ncommit.\n\n[0]:\nkernel BUG at net/ipv6/ip6_fib.c:1217!\nOops: invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] SMP KASAN PTI\nCPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 6010 Comm: syz.0.17 Not tainted syzkaller #0 PREEMPT(full)\nHardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS Google 10/25/2025\nRIP: 0010:fib6_add_rt2node+0x3433/0x3470 net/ipv6/ip6_fib.c:1217\n[...]\nCall Trace:\n \u003cTASK\u003e\n fib6_add+0x8da/0x18a0 net/ipv6/ip6_fib.c:1532\n __ip6_ins_rt net/ipv6/route.c:1351 [inline]\n ip6_route_add+0xde/0x1b0 net/ipv6/route.c:3946\n ipv6_route_ioctl+0x35c/0x480 net/ipv6/route.c:4571\n inet6_ioctl+0x219/0x280 net/ipv6/af_inet6.c:577\n sock_do_ioctl+0xdc/0x300 net/socket.c:1245\n sock_ioctl+0x576/0x790 net/socket.c:1366\n vfs_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:51 [inline]\n __do_sys_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:597 [inline]\n __se_sys_ioctl+0xfc/0x170 fs/ioctl.c:583\n do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:63 [inline]\n do_syscall_64+0xfa/0xf80 arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:94\n entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x77/0x7f",
"id": "GHSA-q4xx-rwj3-jf4m",
"modified": "2026-02-14T18:30:16Z",
"published": "2026-02-14T18:30:16Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-23200"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/50b7c7a255858a85c4636a1e990ca04591153dca"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/b8ad2d53f706aeea833d23d45c0758398fede580"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/bbf4a17ad9ffc4e3d7ec13d73ecd59dea149ed25"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/d8143c54ceeba232dc8a13aa0afa14a44b371d93"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
Sightings
| Author | Source | Type | Date |
|---|
Nomenclature
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
- Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
- Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.