CVE-2026-31526 — bpf: Fix exception exit lock checking for subprogs
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: bpf: Fix exception exit lock checking for subprogs process_bpf_exit_full() passes check_lock = !curframe to check_resource_leak(), which is false in cases when bpf_throw() is called from a static subprog. This makes check_resource_leak() to skip validation of active_rcu_locks, active_preempt_locks, and active_irq_id on exception exits from subprogs. At runtime bpf_throw() unwinds the stack via ORC without releasing any user-acquired locks, which may cause various issues as the result. Fix by setting check_lock = true for exception exits regardless of curframe, since exceptions bypass all intermediate frame cleanup. Update the error message prefix to "bpf_throw" for exception exits to distinguish them from normal BPF_EXIT. Fix reject_subprog_with_rcu_read_lock test which was previously passing for the wrong reason. Test program returned directly from the subprog call without closing the RCU section, so the error was triggered by the unclosed RCU lock on normal exit, not by bpf_throw. Update __msg annotations for affected tests to match the new "bpf_throw" error prefix. The spin_lock case is not affected because they are already checked [1] at the call site in do_check_insn() before bpf_throw can run. [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/kernel/bpf/verifier.c?h=v7.0-rc4#n21098
Who exploits it and how urgent it is
A 0–100 score combining confirmed exploitation, ransomware and APT use, public exploits, EPSS and severity.
How the score was calculated
- EPSS 0.1% (30-day exploitation probability)+0
- Technical severity (medium)+3
The score orders the patch queue; it does not replace your asset context (internet exposure, criticality, compensating controls).
Triage
Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the sources call it.
Remediation
Fixes and mitigations documented by the sources — linked to the original advisory.
- Documented patch — git.kernel.org (NIST National Vulnerability Database)
- Documented patch — git.kernel.org (NIST National Vulnerability Database)
- Documented patch — git.kernel.org (NIST National Vulnerability Database)
First 24 hours
Ordered from the record’s own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found. A rule-generated starting point.
- Identify exposed assets running the affected vendor/product/version combinations (Linux Linux, Linux Linux Kernel).
- Apply the fixed version or the patch documented under Remediation.
- Search available logs for exploit probes, errors and authentication anomalies.
Affected scope
Vendor, product and versions as the sources word them.
| Vendor | Product | Versions | Status | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Linux | Linux | ≥ f18b03fabaa9b7c80e80b72a621f481f0d706ae0 and < c0281da1f2aa5c2fca3a05f79b86bea96591c358≥ f18b03fabaa9b7c80e80b72a621f481f0d706ae0 and < 5a399f3117642494e35545f6ca397d3e177c1f9b≥ f18b03fabaa9b7c80e80b72a621f481f0d706ae0 and < 6c2128505f61b504c79a20b89596feba61388112version 6.7 | Vulnerable | CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP |
| Linux | Linux Kernel | ≥ 6.7 and < 6.18.21≥ 6.19 and < 6.19.11version 7.0-rc1version 7.0-rc2version 7.0-rc3version 7.0-rc4 | Vulnerable | NIST National Vulnerability Database |
Attack characteristics
The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.
Every base score collected
Sources score independently and may disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.
| Score | Version | Severity | Expl. | Impact | Scored by |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5.5 | CVSS 3.1 | Medium | 1.8 | 3.6 | nvd@nist.gov via NIST National Vulnerability Database |
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H (score shown at the top: nvd@nist.gov) Weakness MITRE
Weakness class according to MITRE’s CWE catalog.
EPSS over time FIRST
Oct 13, 2026 → Oct 14, 2026 · 2 reading(s) · max 0.13%
Detection
Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not tested rules.
- Local/physical vector: focus on endpoint telemetry (EDR) from affected hosts.
Timeline
What happened to this CVE, newest first.
- 2026
- Affected products added · linux/linux
- Record published
- Fix documented
- CVSS changed · 5.5
- Source status changed · → Analyzed
- Record created in this database
- CVE published
Source activity
Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.
- 1× Official description updated · Oct 13, 2026 – Oct 13, 2026
References
3 on the record
Elsewhere on this site
Related CVEs (same products)
- Critical CVE-2026-99999 ipv4: validate checksum_start before completing checksum 13h
- Unknown CVE-2026-98432 ipv4: free inet_opt and ireq_opt after an RCU grace period 13h
- Unknown CVE-2026-98426 wifi: mwifiex: fix IRQ leak using wrong index in MSI-X error path 1d
- Unknown CVE-2026-98427 net/sched: codel: bound the dropping loop per dequeue call 1d
- Unknown CVE-2026-98428 ALSA: usb: 6fire: Avoid embedded URBs 1d
- Unknown CVE-2026-98429 RDMA/efa: Keep EQ resources alive while IRQ is registered 1d
Not in any source we poll
Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.
- No CISA SSVC assessment.
- No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
- No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
- No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.
Answered from this record
Text assembled only from the fields above — no additional claims.
What should defenders know first?
CVE-2026-31526 is "bpf: Fix exception exit lock checking for subprogs", rated Medium. It affects Linux (Linux); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 5.5 describes technical severity. EPSS 0.13% estimates the probability of exploitation in 30 days; neither replaces your asset context. First verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run the affected versions, apply vendor fixes or mitigations, and preserve logs for review.
Comments
Moderated technical discussion. Read the community guidelines.
No comments yet.
Sign in or create an account to comment and suggest corrections.