CVE-2026-93050 — ipack: ipoctal: fix UAF, null-ptr-deref, and use-after-free in cleanup on remove
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ipack: ipoctal: fix UAF, null-ptr-deref, and use-after-free in cleanup on remove Three issues arise when the device is removed while a tty session is still active: 1. UAF of struct ipoctal: the remove callback frees ipoctal via kfree() while tty ops may still access it. Fix by introducing kref-based lifetime management — kref is taken in install() when a tty is opened and released in cleanup() when the tty is finally destroyed; remove() uses kref_put() instead of kfree(). 2. NULL dereference in ipoctal_write_tty(): __ipoctal_remove() frees xmit_buf via tty_port_free_xmit_buf() while a userspace process may still hold the tty fd and call write(). Fix by checking for NULL xmit_buf in ipoctal_write_tty(). 3. UAF in ipoctal_cleanup(): ipack_put_carrier(ipoctal->dev) dereferences ipoctal->dev after the ipack_device has been freed by ipack_device_del(). Fix by caching ipoctal->carrier_owner during probe() and calling module_put() on the cached pointer directly in cleanup(), avoiding any access to ipoctal->dev. Also introduce a "removed" flag in struct ipoctal, set at the start of __ipoctal_remove(), and checked in every tty op that accesses hardware resources (port_activate, write_tty, set_termios, hangup, shutdown). This prevents page faults when devm_ioremap() regions are unmapped after remove() returns.
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 0.2% (30-day exploitation probability)+1
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.
No fix documented by the sources we poll. That does not mean none exists: check the vendor advisory.
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).
- No fix documented in the sources: reduce exposure and monitor the vendor advisory.
- 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 | ≥ 05e5027efc9c0bb6d1d04cde279afbafca0a7929 and < ab5f5b27a340004b92252c6a5f23bf1c6cf3b02a≥ 05e5027efc9c0bb6d1d04cde279afbafca0a7929 and < c92ef8fd834521f0b788e0511976c689fe57c63c≥ 05e5027efc9c0bb6d1d04cde279afbafca0a7929 and < a4613140f01bd0fb9980e2746ed9aaa65a29b5d6≥ 05e5027efc9c0bb6d1d04cde279afbafca0a7929 and < 1a3258e105f711538201bdd2ac2a05b11554eabc≥ 05e5027efc9c0bb6d1d04cde279afbafca0a7929 and < 4a6518be316029650301f2a5e8f0def229b895d9≥ 05e5027efc9c0bb6d1d04cde279afbafca0a7929 and < b6b5d64cb161a28347d64dc3168a636c4abb68d5version 3.8 | Vulnerable | CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP |
EPSS over time FIRST
Oct 15, 2026 → Oct 16, 2026 · 2 reading(s) · max 0.21%
Detection
Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not tested rules.
- Not enough vector or weakness data: use the affected application’s logs as a starting point.
Timeline
What happened to this CVE, newest first.
- 2026
- Record published
- Affected products added · linux/linux
- Source status changed · → Received
- Record created in this database
- CVE published
Source activity
Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.
- 1× Official description updated · Oct 15, 2026 – Oct 15, 2026
References
6 on the record
- git.kernel.org/stable/c/4a6518be316029650301f2a5e8f0def229b895d9
- git.kernel.org/stable/c/a4613140f01bd0fb9980e2746ed9aaa65a29b5d6
- git.kernel.org/stable/c/b6b5d64cb161a28347d64dc3168a636c4abb68d5
- git.kernel.org/stable/c/c92ef8fd834521f0b788e0511976c689fe57c63c
- git.kernel.org/stable/c/ab5f5b27a340004b92252c6a5f23bf1c6cf3b02a
- git.kernel.org/stable/c/1a3258e105f711538201bdd2ac2a05b11554eabc
Elsewhere on this site
Related CVEs (same products)
- Critical CVE-2026-99999 ipv4: validate checksum_start before completing checksum 2d
- Unknown CVE-2026-98432 ipv4: free inet_opt and ireq_opt after an RCU grace period 2d
- Unknown CVE-2026-98424 wifi: cfg80211: undo netns switch if renaming the wiphy fails 3d
- Unknown CVE-2026-98425 wifi: mac80211: don't warn when an IBSS has no channel to scan 3d
- Unknown CVE-2026-98426 wifi: mwifiex: fix IRQ leak using wrong index in MSI-X error path 3d
- Unknown CVE-2026-98427 net/sched: codel: bound the dropping loop per dequeue call 3d
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 CVSS score published by NVD, the CNA, CISA or GitHub so far.
- No fixed version, patch or mitigation documented.
- No CISA SSVC assessment.
- No CWE classification.
- 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-2026-93050 is "ipack: ipoctal: fix UAF, null-ptr-deref, and use-after-free in cleanup on remove", rated Unknown. It affects Linux (Linux); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. EPSS 0.21% 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.