CVE-2026-98084

What the bug is

When processing calls to bpf_loop() verifier marks R1 (and R4) as precise. R1 tracks loop iterations number and because of the 'callback_depth < R1' mechanics in check_helper_call() must be marked precise. However, precision propagation for R1 was broken, when bpf_loop() call was verified on a second iteration. Consider the following verification trace: - main: bpf_loop(nr_loops, callback ...) - callback: BPF_EXIT - main: bpf_loop(nr_loops, callback ...) - ... While the first visit of the call to bpf_loop() propagated R1 precision as expected, the second call to mark_chain_precision() in the check_helper_call() set R1, but it was immediately reset when backtrack_insn() processed preceding BPF_EXIT in the loop deleted in this patch. Because of that, the second visit of the call to bpf_loop() injected checkpoint with R1 not marked as precise. Which could trick the verifier into accepting unsafe programs. See the next patch for an example of such program. Commit is structured in a way to minimize conflicts when 'bpf' would be eventually merged with 'bpf-next'.

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/backtrack.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

0.17%, higher than 5.5% 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

Introduced	Fixed in	Commit
6.7	6.18.57	3a39bc9707fb
6.7	7.2.7	f83890dfed9e
6.7	7.3	e3e4f66cc4b7
6.6.15	0	0