Patchlage

CVE-2026-90138

CVE CVE-2026-90138EUVD EUVD-2026-81731Published 2026-09-17T16:06:36.000Z

What the advisory describes

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: vsock: don't check the listener's sk_err in vsock_accept() Syzbot reported an issue which can be reproduced with these steps: r0 = socket(AF_VSOCK, SOCK_STREAM, 0) bind(r0, {VMADDR_CID_ANY, PORT}) connect(r0, {VMADDR_CID_LOCAL, PORT}) -> -1, EPROTO (self-connect) listen(r0, backlog) -> 0 r1 = socket(AF_VSOCK, SOCK_STREAM, 0) connect(r1, {VMADDR_CID_LOCAL, PORT}) -> 0 accept(r0) -> -1, EPROTO (stale sk_err) Basically, it creates a socket (r0) and triggers a self-connect after binding it. This self-connect fails with EPROTO because it loops back to r0 while the socket is still in the TCP_SYN_SENT state, causing it to be incorrectly dispatched to the connecting-client path. The unexpected packet type encountered there sets sk_err to EPROTO. After that, it invokes a listen() call on the same socket. This listen() call succeeds because the kernel's listening path never inspects or clears sk_err. Then, a new socket (r1) is created as a normal client and connects to r0. However, vsock_accept() rejects this incoming connection because the listener's sk_err still holds the EPROTO error from the earlier failed self-connect. This rejection causes the child socket created for r1's connection to never be freed on virtio or hyperv transports; only the VMCI transport implements pending_work to revisit and clean up a rejected socket. For a non-blocking connect(), vsock_connect() may return -EINPROGRESS immediately, and vsock_connect_timeout() can later set sk->sk_err asynchronously. Since no vsock transport ever sets sk_err on a socket while it is in TCP_LISTEN state, checking it in vsock_accept() serves no purpose and only carries forward errors left behind by earlier, unrelated connection attempts on the same socket. Remove the checks so accept() no longer rejects valid incoming connections because of a stale error, which also avoids the resource leak described above.

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.