CVE-2026-97942 — x86/alternatives: Exclude text poking against change_page_attr()
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: x86/alternatives: Exclude text poking against change_page_attr() From time to time, the following BUG can be observed in the x86 alternatives patching code [0]: > kernel BUG at arch/x86/kernel/alternative.c:2576! > Oops: invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] SMP NOPTI > CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 355 Comm: (udev-worker) Not tainted 7.1.3-1-default #1 PREEMPT(full) openSUSE Tumbleweed 8c1795b03ec64f997e57a8ad38b1161e3b98da64 > Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS unknown 02/02/2022 > RIP: 0010:__text_poke+0x2aa/0x450 > Call Trace: > <TASK> > smp_text_poke_batch_finish+0x2a7/0x320 > __static_call_transform+0xb7/0x220 > arch_static_call_transform+0x5b/0xb0 > __static_call_init+0xe9/0x270 > static_call_module_notify+0x11f/0x150 > notifier_call_chain+0x61/0xe0 > blocking_notifier_call_chain_robust+0x63/0xc0 > load_module+0x1c92/0x20c0 > init_module_from_file+0xd8/0x140 > idempotent_init_module+0x100/0x2f0 > __x64_sys_finit_module+0x71/0xe0 > do_syscall_64+0xe1/0x610 > entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e which matches the following BUG_ON() in alternative.c: /* * If something went wrong, crash and burn since recovery paths are not * implemented. */ BUG_ON(!pages[0] || (cross_page_boundary && !pages[1])); This can happen if vmalloc_to_page() fails, for any reason. Such can happen if text poking races with CPA, which can possibly result in the collapsing of page tables (or breaking of PMD hugepages). It is not a problem for most users of vmalloc_to_page() (they solely own the vmalloc'd range) but, when CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_EXECMEM_ROX=y, various modules own a single execmem vmalloc range, and can call set_memory_*() in parallel on it. This can happen to race against __text_poke and cause havoc in vmalloc_to_page(). Fix it by excluding against CPA using the init_mm mmap read lock. [ dhansen: Fix up SoB ordering. The actual code flow here was: Pedro=>Lorenzo=>Mike=>Me which is reflected in the SoB chain now. I *believe* Mike simply picked up Lorenzo's update to Pedro's post from the Link ]
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 | ≥ 64f6a4e10c05ed527f0f24b7954964255e0d3535 and < 281e6f536f2f3f95d91938c5bd7ba9bcb4c1049d≥ 64f6a4e10c05ed527f0f24b7954964255e0d3535 and < 89c60435b90d32ab5e3a39da3ae73d463d07debe≥ 64f6a4e10c05ed527f0f24b7954964255e0d3535 and < 1587d3394e254639cc36516256031334095e6ef3version 6.15 | Vulnerable | CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP |
EPSS over time FIRST
Oct 15, 2026 → Oct 16, 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.
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
3 on the record
Elsewhere on this site
Related CVEs (same products)
- Critical CVE-2026-99999 ipv4: validate checksum_start before completing checksum 1d
- Unknown CVE-2026-98432 ipv4: free inet_opt and ireq_opt after an RCU grace period 1d
- Unknown CVE-2026-98431 RDMA/uverbs: Fix mmap_lock/disassociation_lock circular dependency 2d
- Unknown CVE-2026-98430 RDMA/efa: Keep admin queues alive while IRQ is registered 2d
- Unknown CVE-2026-98429 RDMA/efa: Keep EQ resources alive while IRQ is registered 2d
- Unknown CVE-2026-98428 ALSA: usb: 6fire: Avoid embedded URBs 2d
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-2026-97942 is "x86/alternatives: Exclude text poking against change_page_attr()", 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.