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

Look up another CVE · open CVE-2026-98049 in the interactive tracker

CVE-2026-98049

bpf: zero extend the result of an arena 32-bit cmpxchg

EPSS 0.1%

Published 2026-09-25 (24 days ago) by the Linux kernel CNA. Subsystem kernel/bpf. Debian urgency: unimportant.

What to do, per Debian release

Debian's own status for CVE-2026-98049 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 12bookwormnot affected6.1.190-1Nothing to do. bookworm never shipped the vulnerable code.
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 14forkyfixed7.2.7-1Update the kernel and reboot. Fixed in 7.2.7-1. A running kernel keeps the old code until the machine restarts.
Debian unstablesidfixed7.2.7-1Update the kernel and reboot. Fixed in 7.2.7-1. A running kernel keeps the old code until the machine restarts.

The vulnerability

What the bug is

bpf_convert_ctx_accesses() rewrites an atomic on an arena pointer from BPF_STX | BPF_ATOMIC to BPF_STX | BPF_PROBE_ATOMIC, and it runs before bpf_opt_subreg_zext_lo32_rnd_hi32(). That pass emits an explicit zero extension for a 32-bit cmpxchg even when bpf_jit_needs_zext() is false. This is done because on some architectures 32-bit cmpxchg requires explicit zero extension for the dst register. E.g. on x86-64 'lock cmpxchg' does not change the %eax if comparison is successful, while BPF semantics declare that each operation on a 32-bit register zero extends it's upper half. is_cmpxchg_insn() matches BPF_MODE == BPF_ATOMIC only, so an arena cmpxchg misses said zero extension adjustment. This patch adjusts is_cmpxchg_insn() to match BPF_PROBE_ATOMIC alongside BPF_ATOMIC.

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/fixups.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 with an answer below compiles the affected file into the kernels it ships. The build rule could not be established for 2 releases, so nothing is claimed about those.

  • bookworm, trixie?
  • forky, sidy
?
not established - no Makefile entry for the affected file
y
built into the kernel image on every flavour - only a patch removes it

Where a release above reads "not established", no build rule for the affected file was found in that release's kernel tree. That is a gap in this lookup, not a finding that the code is absent.

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
2026-09-25 (24 days ago)source
CVSS
no vector published, unrated
Attack vector
not published
EPSS
0.12%, higher than 1.7% of all CVEssource
CISA KEV
not listedthe KEV catalogue
Debian urgency
unimportantsource
Subsystem
kernel/bpf

Upstream fixes

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

IntroducedFixed inCommit
6.106.18.576bb6ae5ab1be
6.107.2.71c1b476d43a8
6.107.34814ed6406f3

Why the CNA scored it this way

The kernel CNA published no CVSS vector and no reasoning for CVE-2026-98049, 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.