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

Look up another CVE · open CVE-2026-98543 in the interactive tracker

CVE-2026-98543

bpf: fs/xattr: don't assume the inode is locked in path_unlink/path_rmdir

Published 2026-10-18 (today) by the Linux kernel CNA. Subsystem fs. Debian urgency: unimportant.

What to do, per Debian release

Debian's own status for CVE-2026-98543 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 14forkyfixed7.2.9-1Update the kernel and reboot. Fixed in 7.2.9-1. A running kernel keeps the old code until the machine restarts.
Debian unstablesidfixed7.2.9-1Update the kernel and reboot. Fixed in 7.2.9-1. A running kernel keeps the old code until the machine restarts.

The vulnerability

What the bug is

bpf_lsm_has_d_inode_locked() makes the verifier rewrite bpf_[set|remove]_dentry_xattr() to the _locked variants, which assume that the caller already holds the inode's i_rwsem. The path_unlink and path_rmdir hooks are listed, but security_path_unlink() and security_path_rmdir() run before vfs_unlink()/vfs_rmdir() take the victim inode's i_rwsem, so a sleepable BPF LSM program attached to either hook mutates the victim's xattrs without the lock held. Drop the two path hooks from d_inode_locked_hooks so that the verifier keeps the locking bpf_[set|remove]_dentry_xattr() variants, which take the lock themselves.

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.

fs/bpf_fs_kfuncs.c

What this is
FILESYSTEMS (VFS and infrastructure)MAINTAINERS section matched on fs/* · linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org · Maintained

Check it on the machine

grep -w CONFIG_BPF_LSM /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, but not on every flavour. At least one release below builds the code on some of its kernel flavours and not on others, so the answer depends on the architecture and flavour installed. The build rule could not be established for 1 release, so nothing is claimed about those.

  • bookworm?
  • trixie, forky, sidYnot built on s390x/s390x
?
not established - no Makefile entry for the affected file
Y
built in where it is built at all; some flavours do not build 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 switch
CONFIG_BPF_LSM

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
2026-10-18 (today)source
CVSS
no vector published, unrated
Attack vector
not published
EPSS
not scored
CISA KEV
not listedthe KEV catalogue
Debian urgency
unimportantsource
Subsystem
fs

Upstream fixes

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

IntroducedFixed inCommit
6.156.18.557504b677c437
6.157.2.9640d37fbd34d
6.157.335d442ed1f86

Why the CNA scored it this way

The kernel CNA published no CVSS vector and no reasoning for CVE-2026-98543, 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.