Patchlage

CVE-2026-97942

CVE CVE-2026-97942EUVD EUVD-2026-86796Published 2026-09-25T10:22:54.000Z

What the advisory describes

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: x86/alternatives: Exclude text poking against change_page_attr() From time to time, the following BUG can be observed in the x86 alternatives patching code [0]: > kernel BUG at arch/x86/kernel/alternative.c:2576! > Oops: invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] SMP NOPTI > CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 355 Comm: (udev-worker) Not tainted 7.1.3-1-default #1 PREEMPT(full) openSUSE Tumbleweed 8c1795b03ec64f997e57a8ad38b1161e3b98da64 > Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS unknown 02/02/2022 > RIP: 0010:__text_poke+0x2aa/0x450 > Call Trace: > <TASK> > smp_text_poke_batch_finish+0x2a7/0x320 > __static_call_transform+0xb7/0x220 > arch_static_call_transform+0x5b/0xb0 > __static_call_init+0xe9/0x270 > static_call_module_notify+0x11f/0x150 > notifier_call_chain+0x61/0xe0 > blocking_notifier_call_chain_robust+0x63/0xc0 > load_module+0x1c92/0x20c0 > init_module_from_file+0xd8/0x140 > idempotent_init_module+0x100/0x2f0 > __x64_sys_finit_module+0x71/0xe0 > do_syscall_64+0xe1/0x610 > entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e which matches the following BUG_ON() in alternative.c: /* * If something went wrong, crash and burn since recovery paths are not * implemented. */ BUG_ON(!pages[0] || (cross_page_boundary && !pages[1])); This can happen if vmalloc_to_page() fails, for any reason. Such can happen if text poking races with CPA, which can possibly result in the collapsing of page tables (or breaking of PMD hugepages). It is not a problem for most users of vmalloc_to_page() (they solely own the vmalloc'd range) but, when CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_EXECMEM_ROX=y, various modules own a single execmem vmalloc range, and can call set_memory_*() in parallel on it. This can happen to race against __text_poke and cause havoc in vmalloc_to_page(). Fix it by excluding against CPA using the init_mm mmap read lock. [ dhansen: Fix up SoB ordering. The actual code flow here was: Pedro=>Lorenzo=>Mike=>Me which is reflected in the SoB chain now. I *believe* Mike simply picked up Lorenzo's update to Pedro's post from the Link ]

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.