CVE-2026-97992
CVE CVE-2026-97992EUVD EUVD-2026-86646Published 2026-09-25T10:23:24.000Z
What the advisory describes
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: vhost-vdpa: protect config_ctx from being freed under the config callback vhost_vdpa_config_cb() loads v->config_ctx and signals it without taking a reference and without holding any lock: struct eventfd_ctx *config_ctx = v->config_ctx; if (config_ctx) eventfd_signal(config_ctx); VHOST_VDPA_SET_CONFIG_CALL replaces that field and drops what is normally the last reference to the old context: swap(ctx, v->config_ctx); if (ctx) eventfd_ctx_put(ctx); eventfd_ctx_put() drops the last kref and frees the context immediately, with no RCU grace period, so a callback that has already loaded the pointer goes on to dereference freed memory. The two sides share no lock: the ioctl runs under vhost_dev.mutex, while the parent invokes the callback from its own interrupt or workqueue context. This is not the reopen refcount underflow fixed by commit f6bbf0010ba0 ("vhost-vdpa: fix use-after-free of v->config_ctx"), which was about vhost_vdpa_config_put() leaving a stale pointer behind. Here the pointer is maintained correctly and it is the read side that is unprotected. With VDUSE as the parent this is reachable from userspace with access to /dev/vduse (root by default). VDUSE_DEV_INJECT_CONFIG_IRQ queues dev->inject, and vduse_dev_irq_inject() runs the callback under VDUSE's own dev->irq_lock, which vhost does not hold. vduse_dev_reset() does flush_work(&dev->inject), but VHOST_VDPA_SET_CONFIG_CALL never goes through reset, so an inject already in flight is not waited for. A process that injects config interrupts on the VDUSE fd while another thread swaps the call fd on the vhost-vdpa fd hits it in seconds: BUG: KASAN: slab-use-after-free in native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath Read of size 4 at addr ffff888107d21808 by task kworker/u17:1/2993 Workqueue: vduse-irq vduse_dev_irq_inject Call Trace: native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath+0x97/0x5b0 _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0xd4/0xe0 eventfd_signal_mask+0x69/0x120 vhost_vdpa_config_cb+0x34/0x50 vduse_dev_irq_inject+0x46/0x60 process_one_work+0x468/0x950 Allocated by task 2992: do_eventfd+0x50/0x200 __x64_sys_eventfd2+0x2e/0x40 Freed by task 2992: eventfd_ctx_put+0xb9/0xc0 vhost_vdpa_unlocked_ioctl+0x116c/0x2190 Add a spinlock covering every access to config_ctx, so the callback either signals a context that is still alive or observes NULL, and the put happens only once no callback can reach the old value. Clearing the parent's callback before the put would not be enough: of the in-tree set_config_cb() implementations only VDUSE takes a lock, the rest store the pointer unlocked, so that would not order against an in-flight invocation.
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 776f395004d829bbbf18c159ed9beb517a208c71 <f4a93f15ed1c8406ba5c8e5b28cafacb2b3bcd11; 776f395004d829bbbf18c159ed9beb517a208c71 <5a075ee2398929d5cc1393666f219c35332becb1; patch: 6.18.53; patch: 0; patch: 7.3-rc3; patch: 6.12.111; patch: 7.2.7; 776f395004d829bbbf18c159ed9beb517a208c71 <bf35c8948ab7a3eaf1f724fa1e870e3f73a1749b; 5.8; 776f395004d829bbbf18c159ed9beb517a208c71 <62be4e3e5f5f947fbf765b914cebdc478f715d12
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
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 daysPatchlage 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.