data built 2026-10-19T13:16:53Z

Look up another CVE · open CVE-2026-53106 in the interactive tracker

CVE-2026-53106

bpf: Do not allow deleting local storage in NMI

EPSS 0.1%

Published 2026-06-24 (4 months ago) by the Linux kernel CNA. Subsystem kernel/bpf. Debian urgency: not yet assigned.

What to do, per Debian release

Debian's own status for CVE-2026-53106 in every release this site tracks, and what each one means in practice. Every status below is the one the Debian Security Team publishes for this CVE. source

ReleaseStatus VersionWhat this means
Debian 12bookwormvulnerable6.1.190-1No fix published anywhere yet, neither in Debian nor upstream for the series bookworm tracks. Watch the Debian tracker page for this CVE. Advisories for bookworm have historically landed a median of 23 days after publication.
Debian 13trixievulnerable6.12.113-1No fix published anywhere yet, neither in Debian nor upstream for the series trixie tracks. Watch the Debian tracker page for this CVE. Advisories for trixie have historically landed a median of 11 days after publication.
Debian 14forkyfixed7.0.10-1Update the kernel and reboot. Fixed in 7.0.10-1. A running kernel keeps the old code until the machine restarts.
Debian unstablesidfixed7.0.10-1Update the kernel and reboot. Fixed in 7.0.10-1. A running kernel keeps the old code until the machine restarts.

The vulnerability

What the bug is

Currently, local storage may deadlock when deferring freeing selem or local storage through kfree_rcu(), call_rcu() or call_rcu_tasks_trace() in NMI or reentrant. Since deleting selem in NMI is an unlikely use case, partially mitigate it by returning error when calling from bpf_xxx_storage_delete() helpers in NMI. Note that, it is still possible to deadlock through reentrant. A full mitigation requires returning error when irqs_disabled() is true, which, however is too heavy-handed for bpf_xxx_storage_delete(). The long-term solution requires _nolock versions of call_rcu. Another possible solution is to defer the free through irq_work [0], but it would grow the size of selem, which is non-ideal. The check is only needed in bpf_selem_unlink(), which is used by helpers and syscalls. bpf_selem_unlink_nofail() is fine as it is called during map and owner tear down that never run in NMI or reentrant. [0] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20260205190233.912-1-alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com/

Where it lives

The fix touches these files. If the subsystem is one you do not use, the practical exposure is lower, though the package is still the vulnerable one.

kernel/bpf/bpf_local_storage.c

What this is
BPF [GENERAL] (Safe Dynamic Programs and Tools)MAINTAINERS section matched on kernel/bpf/ · bpf@vger.kernel.org · Supported

Check it on the machine

grep -wE 'CONFIG_BPF|CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL' /boot/config-$(uname -r)

Reads the booted kernel's own configuration, on the machine and nowhere else. =y is built in, =m is a module, and an is not set line means the code is not there.

Show whether Debian builds this, per release

Debian builds this code. Every release below compiles the affected file into the kernels it ships.

  • bookworm, trixie, forky, sidy
y
built into the kernel image on every flavour - only a patch removes it
Build switches
CONFIG_BPF, CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL
Reads as
all on means the file is compiled; any one off means it is not.

From the configuration Debian publishes for every kernel flavour it builds. It covers only the architectures Debian ships a linux-config package for, and nothing about a kernel you built yourself. Debian's own status above stays authoritative about the source package.MAINTAINERS kbuild Makefiles Debian linux-config packages

Signals

Published
2026-06-24 (4 months ago)source
CVSS
no vector published, unrated
Attack vector
not published
EPSS
0.14%, higher than 3.3% of all CVEssource
CISA KEV
not listedthe KEV catalogue
Debian urgency
not yet assignedsource
Subsystem
kernel/bpf

Upstream fixes

The versions the CNA records as introducing and fixing this, and the commit for each. source

IntroducedFixed inCommit
5.137.0.10e84acaf93697
5.137.1350de5b8a9be

Why the CNA scored it this way

The kernel CNA published no CVSS vector and no reasoning for CVE-2026-53106, which is why it is shown as unrated rather than given an invented score. 6,405 of the 20,413 CVEs here carry reasoning; this is not one of them.