CVE Intelligence
Unknown

CVE-2026-93164 — uprobes/x86: Move optimized uprobe from nop5 to nop10

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: uprobes/x86: Move optimized uprobe from nop5 to nop10 Andrii reported an issue with optimized uprobes [1] that can clobber redzone area with call instruction storing return address on stack where user code may keep temporary data without adjusting rsp. Fixing this by moving the optimized uprobes on top of 10-bytes nop instruction, so we can squeeze another instruction to escape the redzone area before doing the call, like: lea -0x80(%rsp), %rsp call tramp Note the lea instruction is used to adjust the rsp register without changing the flags. We use nop10 and following transformation to optimized instructions above and back as suggested by Peterz [2]. Optimize path (int3_update_optimize): 1) Initial state after set_swbp() installed the uprobe: cc 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 00 00 From offset 0 this is INT3 followed by the tail of the original 10-byte NOP. After a previous unoptimization bytes 5..9 may still contain the old call instruction, which remains valid for threads already there. 2) Rewrite the LEA tail and call displacement: cc [8d 64 24 80 e8 d0 d1 d2 d3] From offset 0 this traps on the uprobe INT3. Bytes 1..9 are not executable entry points while byte 0 is trapped. 3) Publish the first LEA byte: [48] 8d 64 24 80 e8 d0 d1 d2 d3 From offset 0 this is: lea -0x80(%rsp), %rsp call <uprobe-trampoline> Unoptimize path (int3_update_unoptimize): 1) Initial optimized state: 48 8d 64 24 80 e8 d0 d1 d2 d3 Same as 3) above. 2) Trap new entries before restoring the NOP bytes: [cc] 8d 64 24 80 e8 d0 d1 d2 d3 From offset 0 this traps. A thread that had already executed the LEA can still reach the intact CALL at offset 5. 3) Restore bytes 1..4 of the original NOP while keeping byte 0 trapped and byte 5 as CALL. cc [2e 0f 1f 84] e8 d0 d1 d2 d3 From offset 0 this still traps. Offset 5 is still the CALL for any thread that was already past the first LEA byte. 4) Publish the first byte of the original NOP: [66] 2e 0f 1f 84 e8 d0 d1 d2 d3 From offset 0 this is the restored 10-byte NOP; the CALL opcode and displacement are now only NOP operands. Offset 5 still decodes as CALL for a thread that was already there. Tthere is only a single target uprobe-trampoline for the given nop10 instruction address, so the CALL instruction will not be changed across unoptimization/optimization cycles. Therefore, any task that is preempted at the CALL instruction is guaranteed to observe that CALL and not anything else. Note as explained in [2] we need to use following nop10: PF1 PF2 ESC NOPL MOD SIB DISP32 NOP10: 0x66, 0x2e, 0x0f, 0x1f, 0x84, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00 -- cs nopw 0x00000000(%rax,%rax,1) which means we need to allow 0x2e prefix which maps to INAT_PFX_CS attribute in is_prefix_bad function. Also changing the uprobe syscall error when called out of uprobe trampoline to -EPROTO, so we are able to detect the fixed kernel. The optimized uprobe performance stays the same: uprobe-nop : 3.129 ± 0.013M/s uprobe-push : 3.045 ± 0.006M/s uprobe-ret : 1.095 ± 0.004M/s --> uprobe-nop10 : 7.170 ± 0.020M/s uretprobe-nop : 2.143 ± 0.021M/s uretprobe-push : 2.090 ± 0.000M/s uretprobe-ret : 0.942 ± 0.000M/s --> uretprobe-nop10: 3.381 ± 0.003M/s usdt-nop : 3.245 ± 0.004M/s --> usdt-nop10 : 7.256 ± 0.023M/s [1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20260509003146.976844-1-andrii@kernel.org/ [2] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20260518104306.GU3102624@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net/#t

Published Sep 17, 2026 · Updated Oct 15, 2026 · Sources: NIST National Vulnerability Database, CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP, GitHub Security Advisories · CNA: Linux

Who exploits it and how urgent it is

A 0–100 score combining confirmed exploitation, ransomware and APT use, public exploits, EPSS and severity.

No exploitation signal in the sources consulted so far.
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.

Exploitation
Not confirmed
Not in CISA KEV — an absence of record, not proof it is unexploited.
EPSS FIRST
0.2%
ahead of 9% of scored CVEs · Oct 15, 2026
Affects
Linux
Linux
CVSS base
—
Score not published yet.

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.

  1. Identify exposed assets running the affected vendor/product/version combinations (Linux Linux).
  2. No fix documented in the sources: reduce exposure and monitor the vendor advisory.
  3. Search available logs for exploit probes, errors and authentication anomalies.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and versions as the sources word them.

VendorProductVersionsStatusSource
Linux Linux ≥ ba2bfc97b4629b10bd8d02b36e04f3932a04cac4 and < 7abc9b49ad01a179e893ba137364a560e21b09f8≥ ba2bfc97b4629b10bd8d02b36e04f3932a04cac4 and < 1b3fecd09910040668b752f3377d7218ca5c59ac≥ ba2bfc97b4629b10bd8d02b36e04f3932a04cac4 and < 554ba38456dad8053a1a80afe6ae6da9eff745ccversion 6.18 Vulnerable CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP

EPSS over time FIRST

Oct 14, 2026 → Oct 15, 2026 · 2 reading(s) · max 0.20%

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.
application logs

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first.

  • 2026
  • Record published
    Oct 15, 2026
  • Affected products added · linux/linux
    Oct 15, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • Source status changed · → Received
    Oct 15, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Record created in this database
    Oct 15, 2026 · Alertas do Telegram
  • CVE published
    Sep 17, 2026 · Linux

Source activity

Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.

  • 2× References added · Oct 15, 2026 – Oct 15, 2026
  • 1× Official description updated · Oct 15, 2026 – Oct 15, 2026

References

5 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

Linux
every CVE for this vendor

Related CVEs (same products)

  • CVE-2026-99999 ipv4: validate checksum_start before completing checksum 1d
  • CVE-2026-98432 ipv4: free inet_opt and ireq_opt after an RCU grace period 1d
  • CVE-2026-98424 wifi: cfg80211: undo netns switch if renaming the wiphy fails 1d
  • CVE-2026-98425 wifi: mac80211: don't warn when an IBSS has no channel to scan 1d
  • CVE-2026-98426 wifi: mwifiex: fix IRQ leak using wrong index in MSI-X error path 1d
  • CVE-2026-98427 net/sched: codel: bound the dropping loop per dequeue call 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 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-2026-93164 is "uprobes/x86: Move optimized uprobe from nop5 to nop10", 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 0.20% 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.