Patchlage

CVE-2026-80895

CVE CVE-2026-80895EUVD EUVD-2026-71645Published 2026-09-04T17:11:10.000Z

What the advisory describes

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mshv: Order pt_vp_array publish against irqfd assertion path mshv_partition_ioctl_create_vp() initialises a VP struct (allocations, mutex_init, init_waitqueue_head, page mappings) and then publishes the pointer into partition->pt_vp_array. Several ISR paths read this array locklessly: the intercept ISR, the two scheduler ISRs, and mshv_try_assert_irq_fast() on the irqfd fast path. Of these, only mshv_try_assert_irq_fast() can structurally race the publish. It runs from an eventfd waker without holding pt_mutex, and MSHV_IRQFD does not require the target lapic_apic_id (== vp_index) to refer to an existing VP at registration time. A user can therefore register an irqfd targeting a yet-to-be-created VP, then trigger mshv_try_assert_irq_fast() concurrently with MSHV_CREATE_VP for the same index. On weakly-ordered architectures the reader can observe a non-NULL pointer in pt_vp_array before the initialising stores to the VP struct become visible, leading to use of partially-initialised fields (e.g. vp_register_page). The other ISR readers cannot reach this race: the hypervisor will not generate intercept or scheduler messages for a VP that has never been told to run, and the user can only call MSHV_RUN_VP on the VP fd returned by MSHV_CREATE_VP, which by construction is returned after the publish. Leave those readers as plain loads. Use smp_store_release() in mshv_partition_ioctl_create_vp() to publish the pointer, and pair it with smp_load_acquire() in mshv_try_assert_irq_fast(). On x86 these compile to plain accesses under TSO; on ARM64 they emit one-instruction acquire/release barriers, acceptable on this fast path. The destroy-side path (destroy_partition() clearing pt_vp_array[i] to NULL after kfree(vp)) has a separate ordering and lifetime concern that is out of scope here.

Source: EUVD (ENISA), in the words of the advisory.

Products the advisory names

These come from the advisory itself, not from any check we performed.

The versions shown are the advisory's own. Patchlage compares no version numbers and derives no judgement from them — which version is installed is something a person has to look up.

Carried in the product catalogue

An estate covering these products can be recorded in Patchlage. An advisory about them appears in the next morning's situation report.

Does this concern one of your customers?

This page cannot answer that — it does not know your estate. Whoever has recorded their environments gets the answer the morning after publication, together with a paragraph they can forward to the customer unedited.

Try it for 28 days

Patchlage reports hits and suspected hits. About everything else this system says nothing — neither this page nor the situation report ever claims that an estate is safe.