-
CVE-2026-43107
•
published on May 6, 2026
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
xfrm: account XFRMA_IF_ID in aevent size calculation
xfrm_get_ae() allocates the reply skb with xfrm_aevent_msgsize(), then
build_aevent() appends attributes including XFRMA_IF_ID when x-if_id is
set.
xfrm_aevent_msgsize() does not include space for XFRMA_IF_ID. For states
with if_id, build_aevent() can fail with -EMSGSIZE and hit BUG_ON(err 0)
in xfrm_get_ae(), turning a malformed netlink interaction into a kernel
panic.
Account XFRMA_IF_ID in the size calculation unconditionally and replace
the BUG_ON with normal error unwinding.
-
CVE-2026-43107
•
published on May 6, 2026
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
xfrm: account XFRMA_IF_ID in aevent size calculation
xfrm_get_ae() allocates the reply skb with xfrm_aevent_msgsize(), then
build_aevent() appends attributes including XFRMA_IF_ID when x-if_id is
set.
xfrm_aevent_msgsize() does not include space for XFRMA_IF_ID. For states
with if_id, build_aevent() can fail with -EMSGSIZE and hit BUG_ON(err 0)
in xfrm_get_ae(), turning a malformed netlink interaction into a kernel
panic.
Account XFRMA_IF_ID in the size calculation unconditionally and replace
the BUG_ON with normal error unwinding.
-
CVE-2026-43107
•
published on May 6, 2026
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
xfrm: account XFRMA_IF_ID in aevent size calculation
xfrm_get_ae() allocates the reply skb with xfrm_aevent_msgsize(), then
build_aevent() appends attributes including XFRMA_IF_ID when x-if_id is
set.
xfrm_aevent_msgsize() does not include space for XFRMA_IF_ID. For states
with if_id, build_aevent() can fail with -EMSGSIZE and hit BUG_ON(err 0)
in xfrm_get_ae(), turning a malformed netlink interaction into a kernel
panic.
Account XFRMA_IF_ID in the size calculation unconditionally and replace
the BUG_ON with normal error unwinding.
-
CVE-2026-43106
•
published on May 6, 2026
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
cachefiles: fix incorrect dentry refcount in cachefiles_cull()
The patch mentioned below changed cachefiles_bury_object() to expect 2
references to the 'rep' dentry. Three of the callers were changed to
use start_removing_dentry() which takes an extra reference so in those
cases the call gets the expected references.
However there is another call to cachefiles_bury_object() in
cachefiles_cull() which did not need to be changed to use
start_removing_dentry() and so was not properly considered.
It still passed the dentry with just one reference so the net result is
that a reference is lost.
To meet the expectations of cachefiles_bury_object(), cachefiles_cull()
must take an extra reference before the call. It will be dropped by
cachefiles_bury_object().
-
CVE-2026-43106
•
published on May 6, 2026
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
cachefiles: fix incorrect dentry refcount in cachefiles_cull()
The patch mentioned below changed cachefiles_bury_object() to expect 2
references to the 'rep' dentry. Three of the callers were changed to
use start_removing_dentry() which takes an extra reference so in those
cases the call gets the expected references.
However there is another call to cachefiles_bury_object() in
cachefiles_cull() which did not need to be changed to use
start_removing_dentry() and so was not properly considered.
It still passed the dentry with just one reference so the net result is
that a reference is lost.
To meet the expectations of cachefiles_bury_object(), cachefiles_cull()
must take an extra reference before the call. It will be dropped by
cachefiles_bury_object().
-
CVE-2026-43106
•
published on May 6, 2026
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
cachefiles: fix incorrect dentry refcount in cachefiles_cull()
The patch mentioned below changed cachefiles_bury_object() to expect 2
references to the 'rep' dentry. Three of the callers were changed to
use start_removing_dentry() which takes an extra reference so in those
cases the call gets the expected references.
However there is another call to cachefiles_bury_object() in
cachefiles_cull() which did not need to be changed to use
start_removing_dentry() and so was not properly considered.
It still passed the dentry with just one reference so the net result is
that a reference is lost.
To meet the expectations of cachefiles_bury_object(), cachefiles_cull()
must take an extra reference before the call. It will be dropped by
cachefiles_bury_object().
-
CVE-2026-43106
•
published on May 6, 2026
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
cachefiles: fix incorrect dentry refcount in cachefiles_cull()
The patch mentioned below changed cachefiles_bury_object() to expect 2
references to the 'rep' dentry. Three of the callers were changed to
use start_removing_dentry() which takes an extra reference so in those
cases the call gets the expected references.
However there is another call to cachefiles_bury_object() in
cachefiles_cull() which did not need to be changed to use
start_removing_dentry() and so was not properly considered.
It still passed the dentry with just one reference so the net result is
that a reference is lost.
To meet the expectations of cachefiles_bury_object(), cachefiles_cull()
must take an extra reference before the call. It will be dropped by
cachefiles_bury_object().
-
CVE-2026-43106
•
published on May 6, 2026
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
cachefiles: fix incorrect dentry refcount in cachefiles_cull()
The patch mentioned below changed cachefiles_bury_object() to expect 2
references to the 'rep' dentry. Three of the callers were changed to
use start_removing_dentry() which takes an extra reference so in those
cases the call gets the expected references.
However there is another call to cachefiles_bury_object() in
cachefiles_cull() which did not need to be changed to use
start_removing_dentry() and so was not properly considered.
It still passed the dentry with just one reference so the net result is
that a reference is lost.
To meet the expectations of cachefiles_bury_object(), cachefiles_cull()
must take an extra reference before the call. It will be dropped by
cachefiles_bury_object().
-
CVE-2026-43106
•
published on May 6, 2026
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
cachefiles: fix incorrect dentry refcount in cachefiles_cull()
The patch mentioned below changed cachefiles_bury_object() to expect 2
references to the 'rep' dentry. Three of the callers were changed to
use start_removing_dentry() which takes an extra reference so in those
cases the call gets the expected references.
However there is another call to cachefiles_bury_object() in
cachefiles_cull() which did not need to be changed to use
start_removing_dentry() and so was not properly considered.
It still passed the dentry with just one reference so the net result is
that a reference is lost.
To meet the expectations of cachefiles_bury_object(), cachefiles_cull()
must take an extra reference before the call. It will be dropped by
cachefiles_bury_object().
-
CVE-2026-43106
•
published on May 6, 2026
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
cachefiles: fix incorrect dentry refcount in cachefiles_cull()
The patch mentioned below changed cachefiles_bury_object() to expect 2
references to the 'rep' dentry. Three of the callers were changed to
use start_removing_dentry() which takes an extra reference so in those
cases the call gets the expected references.
However there is another call to cachefiles_bury_object() in
cachefiles_cull() which did not need to be changed to use
start_removing_dentry() and so was not properly considered.
It still passed the dentry with just one reference so the net result is
that a reference is lost.
To meet the expectations of cachefiles_bury_object(), cachefiles_cull()
must take an extra reference before the call. It will be dropped by
cachefiles_bury_object().
-
CVE-2026-43106
•
published on May 6, 2026
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
cachefiles: fix incorrect dentry refcount in cachefiles_cull()
The patch mentioned below changed cachefiles_bury_object() to expect 2
references to the 'rep' dentry. Three of the callers were changed to
use start_removing_dentry() which takes an extra reference so in those
cases the call gets the expected references.
However there is another call to cachefiles_bury_object() in
cachefiles_cull() which did not need to be changed to use
start_removing_dentry() and so was not properly considered.
It still passed the dentry with just one reference so the net result is
that a reference is lost.
To meet the expectations of cachefiles_bury_object(), cachefiles_cull()
must take an extra reference before the call. It will be dropped by
cachefiles_bury_object().
-
CVE-2026-43106
•
published on May 6, 2026
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
cachefiles: fix incorrect dentry refcount in cachefiles_cull()
The patch mentioned below changed cachefiles_bury_object() to expect 2
references to the 'rep' dentry. Three of the callers were changed to
use start_removing_dentry() which takes an extra reference so in those
cases the call gets the expected references.
However there is another call to cachefiles_bury_object() in
cachefiles_cull() which did not need to be changed to use
start_removing_dentry() and so was not properly considered.
It still passed the dentry with just one reference so the net result is
that a reference is lost.
To meet the expectations of cachefiles_bury_object(), cachefiles_cull()
must take an extra reference before the call. It will be dropped by
cachefiles_bury_object().
-
CVE-2026-43106
•
published on May 6, 2026
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
cachefiles: fix incorrect dentry refcount in cachefiles_cull()
The patch mentioned below changed cachefiles_bury_object() to expect 2
references to the 'rep' dentry. Three of the callers were changed to
use start_removing_dentry() which takes an extra reference so in those
cases the call gets the expected references.
However there is another call to cachefiles_bury_object() in
cachefiles_cull() which did not need to be changed to use
start_removing_dentry() and so was not properly considered.
It still passed the dentry with just one reference so the net result is
that a reference is lost.
To meet the expectations of cachefiles_bury_object(), cachefiles_cull()
must take an extra reference before the call. It will be dropped by
cachefiles_bury_object().
-
CVE-2026-43106
•
published on May 6, 2026
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
cachefiles: fix incorrect dentry refcount in cachefiles_cull()
The patch mentioned below changed cachefiles_bury_object() to expect 2
references to the 'rep' dentry. Three of the callers were changed to
use start_removing_dentry() which takes an extra reference so in those
cases the call gets the expected references.
However there is another call to cachefiles_bury_object() in
cachefiles_cull() which did not need to be changed to use
start_removing_dentry() and so was not properly considered.
It still passed the dentry with just one reference so the net result is
that a reference is lost.
To meet the expectations of cachefiles_bury_object(), cachefiles_cull()
must take an extra reference before the call. It will be dropped by
cachefiles_bury_object().
-
CVE-2026-43106
•
published on May 6, 2026
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
cachefiles: fix incorrect dentry refcount in cachefiles_cull()
The patch mentioned below changed cachefiles_bury_object() to expect 2
references to the 'rep' dentry. Three of the callers were changed to
use start_removing_dentry() which takes an extra reference so in those
cases the call gets the expected references.
However there is another call to cachefiles_bury_object() in
cachefiles_cull() which did not need to be changed to use
start_removing_dentry() and so was not properly considered.
It still passed the dentry with just one reference so the net result is
that a reference is lost.
To meet the expectations of cachefiles_bury_object(), cachefiles_cull()
must take an extra reference before the call. It will be dropped by
cachefiles_bury_object().
-
CVE-2026-43106
•
published on May 6, 2026
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
cachefiles: fix incorrect dentry refcount in cachefiles_cull()
The patch mentioned below changed cachefiles_bury_object() to expect 2
references to the 'rep' dentry. Three of the callers were changed to
use start_removing_dentry() which takes an extra reference so in those
cases the call gets the expected references.
However there is another call to cachefiles_bury_object() in
cachefiles_cull() which did not need to be changed to use
start_removing_dentry() and so was not properly considered.
It still passed the dentry with just one reference so the net result is
that a reference is lost.
To meet the expectations of cachefiles_bury_object(), cachefiles_cull()
must take an extra reference before the call. It will be dropped by
cachefiles_bury_object().
-
CVE-2026-43106
•
published on May 6, 2026
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
cachefiles: fix incorrect dentry refcount in cachefiles_cull()
The patch mentioned below changed cachefiles_bury_object() to expect 2
references to the 'rep' dentry. Three of the callers were changed to
use start_removing_dentry() which takes an extra reference so in those
cases the call gets the expected references.
However there is another call to cachefiles_bury_object() in
cachefiles_cull() which did not need to be changed to use
start_removing_dentry() and so was not properly considered.
It still passed the dentry with just one reference so the net result is
that a reference is lost.
To meet the expectations of cachefiles_bury_object(), cachefiles_cull()
must take an extra reference before the call. It will be dropped by
cachefiles_bury_object().
-
CVE-2026-43106
•
published on May 6, 2026
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
cachefiles: fix incorrect dentry refcount in cachefiles_cull()
The patch mentioned below changed cachefiles_bury_object() to expect 2
references to the 'rep' dentry. Three of the callers were changed to
use start_removing_dentry() which takes an extra reference so in those
cases the call gets the expected references.
However there is another call to cachefiles_bury_object() in
cachefiles_cull() which did not need to be changed to use
start_removing_dentry() and so was not properly considered.
It still passed the dentry with just one reference so the net result is
that a reference is lost.
To meet the expectations of cachefiles_bury_object(), cachefiles_cull()
must take an extra reference before the call. It will be dropped by
cachefiles_bury_object().
-
CVE-2026-43106
•
published on May 6, 2026
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
cachefiles: fix incorrect dentry refcount in cachefiles_cull()
The patch mentioned below changed cachefiles_bury_object() to expect 2
references to the 'rep' dentry. Three of the callers were changed to
use start_removing_dentry() which takes an extra reference so in those
cases the call gets the expected references.
However there is another call to cachefiles_bury_object() in
cachefiles_cull() which did not need to be changed to use
start_removing_dentry() and so was not properly considered.
It still passed the dentry with just one reference so the net result is
that a reference is lost.
To meet the expectations of cachefiles_bury_object(), cachefiles_cull()
must take an extra reference before the call. It will be dropped by
cachefiles_bury_object().
-
CVE-2026-43106
•
published on May 6, 2026
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
cachefiles: fix incorrect dentry refcount in cachefiles_cull()
The patch mentioned below changed cachefiles_bury_object() to expect 2
references to the 'rep' dentry. Three of the callers were changed to
use start_removing_dentry() which takes an extra reference so in those
cases the call gets the expected references.
However there is another call to cachefiles_bury_object() in
cachefiles_cull() which did not need to be changed to use
start_removing_dentry() and so was not properly considered.
It still passed the dentry with just one reference so the net result is
that a reference is lost.
To meet the expectations of cachefiles_bury_object(), cachefiles_cull()
must take an extra reference before the call. It will be dropped by
cachefiles_bury_object().
