CVE-2026-97974

CVE CVE-2026-97974EUVD EUVD-2026-86628Published 2026-09-25T10:23:13.000Z

What the advisory describes

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ipv6: null-check fib6_node before accessing in __ip6_del_rt_siblings() syzbot reported a null-ptr-deref in __ip6_del_rt_siblings() [0]. The stack trace hinted towards a null dereference of rt->fib6_node when fn->leaf is accessed in __ip6_del_rt_siblings(). With RTNL_FLAG_DOIT_UNLOCKED set, inet6_rtm_delroute() operations run concurrently without acquiring the RTNL lock. In ip6_route_del(), the route lookup happens under rcu_read_lock() without acquiring table->tb6_lock. Between ip6_route_del() looking up the route and __ip6_del_rt_siblings() acquiring table->tb6_lock, another thread can modify the routing table. For example, when an ECMP route is replaced via RTM_NEWROUTE with NLM_F_REPLACE, fib6_add_rt2node() unlinks all old siblings and sets iter->fib6_node = NULL. A reproducer was found that triggers this [1]. Add a check to ensure rt->fib6_node is non-null before accessing it. [0] KASAN: null-ptr-deref in range [0x0000000000000020-0x0000000000000027] RIP: 0010:__ip6_del_rt_siblings+0x31e/0x7c0 net/ipv6/route.c:4056 Call Trace: <TASK> ip6_route_del+0x1054/0x1110 net/ipv6/route.c:4232 inet6_rtm_delroute+0x5d7/0x6d0 net/ipv6/route.c:5669 rtnetlink_rcv_msg+0x802/0xc00 net/core/rtnetlink.c:7132 netlink_rcv_skb+0x226/0x4a0 net/netlink/af_netlink.c:2556 netlink_unicast_kernel net/netlink/af_netlink.c:1319 [inline] netlink_unicast+0x7f5/0x990 net/netlink/af_netlink.c:1345 netlink_sendmsg+0x813/0xb40 net/netlink/af_netlink.c:1900 sock_sendmsg_nosec+0x13a/0x180 net/socket.c:800 __sock_sendmsg net/socket.c:815 [inline] ____sys_sendmsg+0x565/0x870 net/socket.c:2713 ___sys_sendmsg+0x2a5/0x360 net/socket.c:2767 __sys_sendmsg net/socket.c:2799 [inline] __do_sys_sendmsg net/socket.c:2804 [inline] __se_sys_sendmsg net/socket.c:2802 [inline] __x64_sys_sendmsg+0x1b7/0x290 net/socket.c:2802 do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:61 [inline] do_syscall_64+0x166/0x520 arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:84 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x77/0x7f </TASK> [1] https://gist.github.com/NamanGulati/0766a1159b6ca61928faaf87425ff899

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.

• Linux — Linux 6.16; patch: 7.3-rc3; patch: 7.2.7; patch: 0; bd11ff421d36abdb585b9104fa70057bf01b3110 <cdca92eddc025fdb90071be97738f7d55a65f8dd; bd11ff421d36abdb585b9104fa70057bf01b3110 <e7ff91f19c1aae039a4257fa86fe849afe185291; bd11ff421d36abdb585b9104fa70057bf01b3110 <1155234c2227cf36072a43e1e09119472ade7ca7; patch: 6.18.53

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.

• Linux — Linux

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.