Look up another CVE · open CVE-2026-93254 in the interactive tracker
CVE-2026-93254
arm64: entry: Avoid unnecessary local_irq_disable() on kernel exit
Published 2026-09-24 (24 days ago) by the Linux kernel CNA. Subsystem arch/arm64. Debian urgency: unimportant.
What to do, per Debian release
Debian's own status for CVE-2026-93254 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
| Release | Status | Version | What this means |
|---|---|---|---|
| Debian 12bookworm | not affected | 6.1.190-1 | Nothing to do. bookworm never shipped the vulnerable code. |
| Debian 13trixie | not affected | 6.12.113-1 | Nothing to do. trixie never shipped the vulnerable code. |
| Debian 14forky | fixed | 7.2.6-1 | Update the kernel and reboot. Fixed in 7.2.6-1. A running kernel keeps the old code until the machine restarts. |
| Debian unstablesid | fixed | 7.2.6-1 | Update the kernel and reboot. Fixed in 7.2.6-1. A running kernel keeps the old code until the machine restarts. |
The vulnerability
What the bug is
Currently, when exiting to kernel mode, we attempt involuntary preemption. The preemption logic expects IRQs to be disabled, which is why we call local_irq_disable() before attempting preemption. However, depending on the context, local_irq_disable() may be unnecessary: - __el1_irq(), the non-NMI EL1 IRQ path, already has IRQs disabled, so local_irq_disable() is redundant. - irqentry_exit_to_kernel_mode_preempt() immediately returns when exiting from an NMI-like context, so calling local_irq_disable() beforehand is unnecessary work. Furthermore, it confuses the pNMI state tracking when we are in a context with interrupts disabled and the GIC_PRIO_PSR_I_SET bit is set in the PMR, leading to a warning when CONFIG_ARM64_DEBUG_PRIORITY_MASKING=y: WARNING: ./arch/arm64/include/asm/irqflags.h:63 at arm64_exit_to_kernel_mode+0xb8/0xc0, CPU#40: retsnoop/31805 CPU: 40 UID: 0 PID: 31805 Comm: retsnoop Not tainted 7.2.0-rc6-next-20260805 #7 PREEMPTLAZY pstate: 234013c9 (nzCv DAIF +PAN -UAO +TCO +DIT +SSBS BTYPE=--) pc : arm64_exit_to_kernel_mode (arch/arm64/kernel/entry-common.c:63) lr : el1_abort (arch/arm64/kernel/entry-common.c:323) pmr: 000000f0 Call trace: arm64_exit_to_kernel_mode (arch/arm64/kernel/entry-common.c:63) (P) el1_abort (arch/arm64/kernel/entry-common.c:323) el1h_64_sync_handler (arch/arm64/kernel/entry-common.c:449) el1h_64_sync (arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S:589) [...] Split arm64_exit_to_kernel_mode() into preempt, non-preempt, and dispatch parts so that we can avoid this extra work where it is not needed and avoid breaking the pNMI tracking logic.
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.
arch/arm64/kernel/entry-common.c
- What this is
- ARM64 PORT (AARCH64 ARCHITECTURE)MAINTAINERS section matched on arch/arm64/ · linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org · Maintained
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
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 Debian linux-config packages
Signals
- Published
- 2026-09-24 (24 days ago)source
- CVSS
- no vector published, unrated
- Attack vector
- not published
- EPSS
- 0.21%, higher than 10.5% of all CVEssource
- CISA KEV
- not listedthe KEV catalogue
- Debian urgency
- unimportantsource
- Subsystem
- arch/arm64
Upstream fixes
The versions the CNA records as introducing and fixing this, and the commit for each. source
| Introduced | Fixed in | Commit |
|---|---|---|
| 7.1 | 7.2.6 | 49a61174186b |
| 7.1 | 7.3 | 39aebe0e8946 |
Why the CNA scored it this way
The kernel CNA published no CVSS vector and no reasoning for CVE-2026-93254, 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.