CVE Intelligence
Unknown

CVE-2026-98427 — net/sched: codel: bound the dropping loop per dequeue call

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net/sched: codel: bound the dropping loop per dequeue call The CoDel control law schedules the next drop one interval/sqrt(count) after the previous drop, using the configured interval (codel_params.interval). For very small intervals the scheduled step rounds down to zero, so the dropping loop in codel_dequeue() never advances and drains the entire backlog under the qdisc lock in one call - an unprivileged user can trigger a soft lockup this way. Fix in the shared codel code used by both codel and fq_codel: 1. Make the control-law step at least 1 tick so the dropping loop always moves forward. 2. Cap the dropping loop at CODEL_MAX_DROPS_PER_DEQUEUE (256) drops per codel_dequeue() call, resyncing drop_next to now when the cap is hit: the catch-up owed to the loop grows with the idle gap and the backlog, which no interval threshold can bound. This is a deliberate behaviour change after long idle gaps. The cap applies to fq_codel (4b549a2ef4be) and the mac80211 TXQ path (fixed interval, cap only). The target sojourn delay (codel_params.target) is not validated: it does not feed the control law, so a sub-tick value is aggressive rather than deadlock-prone. Conditions to recreate the bug: - tc qdisc add dev lo root handle 1: tbf rate 1kbit burst 2kb limit 1000000 - tc qdisc add dev lo parent 1:1 handle 10: codel interval 2us target 1ms noecn limit 1000000 (same for fq_codel) - unpatched kernel: tc accepts it; a UDP flood under the 1kbit tbf soft-lockups (watchdog: BUG: soft lockup) while one codel_dequeue() call drops the backlog under the qdisc lock - patched kernel: same setup, at most 256 drops per dequeue call, no soft lockup Testing: claim reproducer and interval 2us/3us variants run clean; tdc qdisc category passes (see the selftests patch).

Published Oct 14, 2026 · Updated Oct 14, 2026 · Sources: NIST National Vulnerability Database, CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP · 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
  • No scoring signals.

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
—
No EPSS score.
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 ≥ 76e3cc126bb223013a6b9a0e2a51238d1ef2e409 and < bacd72289d34d8c05b7de5a12448b87b6dd93878≥ 76e3cc126bb223013a6b9a0e2a51238d1ef2e409 and < 7f4a5ec6258fd7c92633ec4b0493fc51166d9398version 3.5 Vulnerable CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP

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 14, 2026
  • Affected products added · linux/linux
    Oct 14, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • Source status changed · → Received
    Oct 14, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Record created in this database
    Oct 14, 2026 · Alertas do Telegram
  • CVE published
    Oct 14, 2026 · Linux

Source activity

Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.

  • 1× References added · Oct 14, 2026 – Oct 14, 2026
  • 1× Official description updated · Oct 14, 2026 – Oct 14, 2026

References

2 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 4h
  • CVE-2026-98432 ipv4: free inet_opt and ireq_opt after an RCU grace period 4h
  • 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-2026-98428 ALSA: usb: 6fire: Avoid embedded URBs 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 FIRST EPSS score.
  • 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-2026-98427 is "net/sched: codel: bound the dropping loop per dequeue call", rated Unknown. It affects Linux (Linux); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. 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.