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

Look up another CVE · open CVE-2026-98085 in the interactive tracker

CVE-2026-98085

bpf: backtrack_insn(): Handle ld_{abs,ind} subprog exit edge

EPSS 0.2%

Published 2026-09-25 (24 days 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-2026-98085 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 14forkyfixed7.2.7-1Update 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

Nicholas Carlini reported a bug in precision backtracking mechanism for BPF_LD | BPF_{IND,ABS} instructions. These instructions are modelled as two branches: - fallthrough; - implicit exit from current subprogram. The implicit exit case was not handled by the backtrack_insn() function. When backtracking such a path backtrack_insn() did not call bt_subprog_enter(), which meant that backtracking continued manipulating precision marks in a caller frame, while looking at instructions in a callee frame. This lead to segmentation faults during verification (see the selftest), or unsound state pruning.

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
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
6.18.426.18.57a0cd9e22f8fa
7.17.2.7671b7b9a660e
7.17.3387b1baefbb7
5.10.26500
5.15.21600
6.1.18300
6.6.14800
6.12.10100
7.0.1000

Why the CNA scored it this way

The kernel CNA published no CVSS vector and no reasoning for CVE-2026-98085, 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.