Patchlage

CVE-2026-89762

CVE CVE-2026-89762EUVD EUVD-2026-76674Published 2026-09-11T19:47:03.000ZLast changed 2026-09-13T06:34:06.000ZCVSS 7.8

What the advisory describes

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: apparmor: fix cred UAF caused by begin_current_label_crit_section() AppArmor's begin_current_label_crit_section() is a scary function called from lots of LSM hooks (in particular VFS/socket-related ones) that checks if the label referenced by the current creds is marked FLAG_STALE, and if so, attempts to use aa_replace_current_label() to replace the creds with an updated version that uses a new label. The first problem with this is that it would directly lead to UAF of `struct cred` if anything in the kernel takes a pointer to the current creds and accesses these past a security hook invocation that replaces creds, like so: ``` const struct cred *cred = current_cred(); alloc_file_pseudo(...); uid_t uid = cred->euid; ``` I don't know if anything in the kernel actually does this, but I think it is very surprising that this pattern could lead to UAF. The second problem is that things go wrong when aa_replace_current_label() runs with overridden credentials. aa_replace_current_label() bails out if `current_cred() != current_real_cred()` (mirroring the check in proc_pid_attr_write()), but this check can't actually reliably detect overridden credentials because the overridden creds can be the same as the objective creds. So in approximately the following scenario, things go wrong: 1. task begins with <creds A> (as both objective and subjective creds), with refcount=2 2. task grabs an extra reference on <creds A> for overriding 3. task calls override_creds(<creds A>), which returns a pointer to the old subjective creds (<creds A>) 4. task enters AppArmor LSM hook 5. AppArmor checks that objective/subjective creds are equal 6. AppArmor replaces both cred pointers with <creds B> and drops 2 refs on <creds A> 7. task leaves AppArmor LSM hook 8. task calls revert_creds(<creds A>) 9. now task->cred is <creds A> while task->real_cred is <creds B>, but the task_struct logically holds two references to <creds B> 10. another task drops the extra reference on <creds A> that was used for overriding, refcount drops to 0 11. now task->real_cred points to freed creds At this point, any access to current_cred() will be UAF. I have a test case where I run aa-disable on a profile while a process using that profile is blocked on splice() from a FUSE passthrough file into a full pipe; after the profile update, the pipe becomes empty, splice() resumes, the credentials go out of sync, and a subsequent getuid() syscall results in a KASAN UAF splat. To fix this, instead of directly replacing creds, do it via task_work that will run at the end of the current syscall. (The point in time at which the cred replacement happens should have no correctness impact; it is just a performance optimization to avoid unnecessarily touching the refcount of the new label.) Note that AppArmor still performs direct cred replacements in the sb_pivotroot LSM hook after this change, and that direct cred replacements can still happen in VFS ->write() callbacks via proc_pid_attr_write(). There are two options for what to do with aa_dup_task_ctx(): Either explicitly reset new->label_replacement_pending after the entire aa_task_ctx has been copied, or switch to manually copying members over. I am switching to manually copying members over because that should make bugs more obvious.

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.