GCVE Workshop - 22 September 2026 (14:00-18:00), Luxembourg Before The Vulnopticon Conference - Registration

GHSA-PGWW-XQQJ-6XV5

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-08-15 15:30 – Updated: 2026-08-15 15:30
VLAI
Details

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

uprobes: Fix NULL pointer dereference in hprobe_expire()

Forking a task that has a pending uretprobe can oops the kernel with a NULL pointer dereference in the clone() path:

BUG: kernel NULL pointer dereference, address: 0000000000000018 Oops: 0002 [#1] SMP NOPTI RIP: 0010:hprobe_expire CR2: 0000000000000018 Call Trace: uprobe_copy_process copy_process kernel_clone __x64_sys_clone do_syscall_64 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe

This was found on real hosts on Meta fleet.

I've got the impression that this is what is happening:

CPU 1 CPU 2 (traced task) ----- ------------------- hit uprobe, prepare_uretprobe(): hprobe LEASED, refcount >= 1 uprobe_unregister() put_uprobe(): refcount -> 0 fork() -> dup_utask() hprobe_expire(hprobe, true) try_get_uprobe() -> NULL get_uprobe(NULL) <-- Oops

Only take the extra reference when the uprobe is non-NULL; a NULL means it is gone and is the correct value to return.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-74477"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-08-15T13:17:52Z",
    "severity": null
  },
  "details": "In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:\n\nuprobes: Fix NULL pointer dereference in hprobe_expire()\n\nForking a task that has a pending uretprobe can oops the kernel with a\nNULL pointer dereference in the clone() path:\n\n  BUG: kernel NULL pointer dereference, address: 0000000000000018\n  Oops: 0002 [#1] SMP NOPTI\n  RIP: 0010:hprobe_expire\n  CR2: 0000000000000018\n  Call Trace:\n   uprobe_copy_process\n   copy_process\n   kernel_clone\n   __x64_sys_clone\n   do_syscall_64\n   entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe\n\nThis was found on real hosts on Meta fleet.\n\nI\u0027ve got the impression that this is what is happening:\n\n  CPU 1                          CPU 2 (traced task)\n  -----                          -------------------\n                                 hit uprobe, prepare_uretprobe():\n                                   hprobe LEASED, refcount \u003e= 1\n  uprobe_unregister()\n    put_uprobe(): refcount -\u003e 0\n                                 fork() -\u003e dup_utask()\n                                   hprobe_expire(hprobe, true)\n                                     try_get_uprobe() -\u003e NULL\n                                     get_uprobe(NULL)   \u003c-- Oops\n\nOnly take the extra reference when the uprobe is non-NULL; a NULL means\nit is gone and is the correct value to return.",
  "id": "GHSA-pgww-xqqj-6xv5",
  "modified": "2026-08-15T15:30:33Z",
  "published": "2026-08-15T15:30:33Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-74477"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/06c275a6c0a953ef1d763d11a6891fcc69ae2ac0"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/3bd35a5e272a1b7a3fb43acad9bdc599281b13fa"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/cc679d7a6303e84d769f2afcde1fc51c51f127cd"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": []
}



Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.


Loading…

Loading…

Loading…

Forecast uses a logistic model when the trend is rising, or an exponential decay model when the trend is falling. Fitted via linearized least squares.

Sightings

Author Source Type Date Other

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
  • Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
  • Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.

Loading…

Detection rules are retrieved from Rulezet.

Loading…

Loading…

Loading…