CVE-2026-98427

What the bug is

The CoDel control law schedules the next drop one interval/sqrt(count) after the previous drop, using the configured interval (codel_params.interval). For very small intervals the scheduled step rounds down to zero, so the dropping loop in codel_dequeue() never advances and drains the entire backlog under the qdisc lock in one call - an unprivileged user can trigger a soft lockup this way. Fix in the shared codel code used by both codel and fq_codel: 1. Make the control-law step at least 1 tick so the dropping loop always moves forward. 2. Cap the dropping loop at CODEL_MAX_DROPS_PER_DEQUEUE (256) drops per codel_dequeue() call, resyncing drop_next to now when the cap is hit: the catch-up owed to the loop grows with the idle gap and the backlog, which no interval threshold can bound. This is a deliberate behaviour change after long idle gaps. The cap applies to fq_codel (4b549a2ef4be) and the mac80211 TXQ path (fixed interval, cap only). The target sojourn delay (codel_params.target) is not validated: it does not feed the control law, so a sub-tick value is aggressive rather than deadlock-prone. Conditions to recreate the bug: - tc qdisc add dev lo root handle 1: tbf rate 1kbit burst 2kb limit 1000000 - tc qdisc add dev lo parent 1:1 handle 10: codel interval 2us target 1ms noecn limit 1000000 (same for fq_codel) - unpatched kernel: tc accepts it; a UDP flood under the 1kbit tbf soft-lockups (watchdog: BUG: soft lockup) while one codel_dequeue() call drops the backlog under the qdisc lock - patched kernel: same setup, at most 256 drops per dequeue call, no soft lockup Testing: claim reproducer and interval 2us/3us variants run clean; tdc qdisc category passes (see the selftests patch).

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.

include/net/codel.h
include/net/codel_impl.h

What this is

NETWORKING [GENERAL]MAINTAINERS section matched on include/net/ · netdev@vger.kernel.org · Maintained

Show whether Debian builds this, per release

Not established. This site could not find the build rule for the affected file in the kernel trees Debian ships, so it has no answer about whether Debian compiles this code. Read that as unknown, never as absent.

• bookworm, trixie, forky, sid?

?

not established - no Makefile entry for the affected file

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.

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

Signals

Published

2026-10-14 (4 days ago)source

CVSS

no vector published, unrated

Attack vector

not published

EPSS

0.20%, higher than 8.9% of all CVEssource

CISA KEV

not listedthe KEV catalogue

Debian urgency

not yet assignedsource

Subsystem

include/net

Upstream fixes

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

Introduced	Fixed in	Commit
3.5	7.2.8	bacd72289d34
3.5	7.3	7f4a5ec6258f