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

Look up another CVE · open CVE-2026-98061 in the interactive tracker

CVE-2026-98061

bpf: Reject tail calls directly from callback frames

EPSS 0.2%

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-2026-98061 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 13trixienot affected6.12.113-1Nothing to do. trixie never shipped the vulnerable code.
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

A tail call from a non-zero frame is modeled as a return from that frame. The verifier makes R0 unknown and calls prepare_func_exit() for the taken branch. When the current frame is a synchronous callback, prepare_func_exit() enforces the callback return-value contract and marks R0 precise. Since the tail-call path synthesized R0 rather than deriving it from an instruction, precision backtracking reaches the callback-calling instruction with R0 still requested and triggers the "callback unexpected regs" verifier bug. A CAP_BPF task can therefore cause a WARN and an -EFAULT BPF_PROG_LOAD. Tail calls reachable from callbacks are already rejected later by check_max_stack_depth(). Reject a tail call made directly by a callback before constructing the inconsistent return state, using the existing diagnostic. Tail calls from ordinary subprograms keep their current behavior.

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/verifier.c

What this is
BPF [CORE]MAINTAINERS section matched on kernel/bpf/verifier.c · bpf@vger.kernel.org · Maintained

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
2026-09-25 (24 days ago)source
CVSS
no vector published, unrated
Attack vector
not published
EPSS
0.17%, higher than 5.4% 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
6.18.26.18.53617c8266e49f
6.197.2.796d31b28263c
6.197.3266aa4ad0b2e

Why the CNA scored it this way

The kernel CNA published no CVSS vector and no reasoning for CVE-2026-98061, 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.