GHSA-VHCF-P8JC-X5F6

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-08-15 06:32 – Updated: 2026-08-17 06:33
VLAI
Details

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

bpf: Reset register bounds before narrowing retval range in check_mem_access()

When the BPF verifier processes a context load of an LSM hook return value, it calls __mark_reg_s32_range() to narrow the register to the hook's valid range. However, __mark_reg_s32_range() intersects the new range with the register's existing bounds using max_t()/min_t() rather than replacing them.

If the destination register carries stale bounds from a prior instruction (e.g. BPF_MOV64_IMM), the intersection can produce a range narrower than reality. The verifier then believes it knows the register's exact value, while at runtime the actual hook return value is loaded, creating a verifier/runtime mismatch that can be used to bypass BPF memory safety checks.

The else branch already calls mark_reg_unknown() to reset register state before any narrowing. Apply the same reset in the is_retval path so stale bounds are cleared before __mark_reg_s32_range() intersects.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-72111"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-08-15T06:21:25Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:\n\nbpf: Reset register bounds before narrowing retval range in check_mem_access()\n\nWhen the BPF verifier processes a context load of an LSM hook return\nvalue, it calls __mark_reg_s32_range() to narrow the register to the\nhook\u0027s valid range. However, __mark_reg_s32_range() intersects the new\nrange with the register\u0027s existing bounds using max_t()/min_t() rather\nthan replacing them.\n\nIf the destination register carries stale bounds from a prior instruction\n(e.g. BPF_MOV64_IMM), the intersection can produce a range narrower than\nreality. The verifier then believes it knows the register\u0027s exact value,\nwhile at runtime the actual hook return value is loaded, creating a\nverifier/runtime mismatch that can be used to bypass BPF memory safety\nchecks.\n\nThe else branch already calls mark_reg_unknown() to reset register state\nbefore any narrowing. Apply the same reset in the is_retval path so\nstale bounds are cleared before __mark_reg_s32_range() intersects.",
  "id": "GHSA-vhcf-p8jc-x5f6",
  "modified": "2026-08-17T06:33:10Z",
  "published": "2026-08-15T06:32:12Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-72111"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/0993dc5fc619c0b25ab1310cb11d65e78351c0fe"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/5a55f9aecc08990940e70f0c7048a80850c5a16a"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/5e0b273e0a62cc04ec338c7b502797c66c2ed42a"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/bde92f65042ec14389782dd223f706bf6b59ce5d"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}



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…