Patchlage

CVE-2026-90072

CVE CVE-2026-90072EUVD EUVD-2026-81933Published 2026-09-17T16:05:52.000Z

What the advisory describes

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net/sched: sfq: clamp quantum to avoid signed overflow soft lockup sfq_init() sets q->quantum = psched_mtu(qdisc_dev(sch)) (unsigned). A device with a huge MTU (e.g. dummy with max_mtu == 0 accepting MTU 2147483634) makes psched_mtu() return 0x80000000, so slot->allot = INT_MIN and INT_MIN + INT_MIN toggles between INT_MIN and 0 forever, spinning sfq_dequeue() under the qdisc lock. Clamp the quantum to [256, 1 << 20] so the refill loop terminates. The lower bound also covers q->quantum == 0 (psched_mtu() returning 0), which spins sfq_dequeue() identically. sfq_change() already rejects a negative quantum, so only the init path was exposed. Conditions to recreate the bug: a device whose MTU (plus hard_header_len) wraps psched_mtu() into the sign bit (e.g. a dummy device with max_mtu == 0 accepting MTU 2147483634). Requires CAP_NET_ADMIN in a user namespace.

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.