CVE-2026-46116General(linux / linux_kernel)

LOWCVSS 7.8 · HIGH

Exploit discussion active in current signal (2 latest mentions)

Immediate actions

  • Hunt for exploitation attempts and persistence artifacts
  • Increase monitoring for publicly documented tradecraft
  • Track advisory updates for patch or workaround availability

Recommended action window: High priority (within 72h)

NVD description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: xfrm: defensively unhash xfrm_state lists in __xfrm_state_delete KASAN reproduces a slab-use-after-free in __xfrm_state_delete()'s hlist_del_rcu calls under syzkaller load on linux-6.12.y stable (reproduced on 6.12.47, also reachable via the same code path on torvalds/master and on the ipsec tree). Nine unique signatures cluster in the xfrm_state lifecycle, the load-bearing one being: BUG: KASAN: slab-use-after-free in __hlist_del include/linux/list.h:990 [inline] BUG: KASAN: slab-use-after-free in hlist_del_rcu include/linux/rculist.h:516 [inline] BUG: KASAN: slab-use-after-free in __xfrm_state_delete net/xfrm/xfrm_state.c Write of size 8 at addr ffff8881198bcb70 by task kworker/u8:9/435 Workqueue: netns cleanup_net Call Trace: __hlist_del / hlist_del_rcu __xfrm_state_delete xfrm_state_delete xfrm_state_flush xfrm_state_fini ops_exit_list cleanup_net The other observed signatures hit the same slab object from __xfrm_state_lookup, xfrm_alloc_spi, __xfrm_state_insert and an OOB write variant of __xfrm_state_delete, all on the byseq/byspi hash chains. __xfrm_state_delete() guards its byseq and byspi unhashes with value-based predicates: if (x->km.seq) hlist_del_rcu(&x->byseq); if (x->id.spi) hlist_del_rcu(&x->byspi); while everywhere else in the file (e.g. state_cache, state_cache_input) the safer hlist_unhashed() check is used. xfrm_alloc_spi() sets x->id.spi = newspi inside xfrm_state_lock and then immediately inserts into byspi, but a path that observes x->id.spi != 0 outside of xfrm_state_lock can still skip-or-hit the byspi unhash inconsistently with whether x is actually on the list. The same holds for x->km.seq versus byseq, and the bydst/bysrc unhashes have no predicate at all, so a second __xfrm_state_delete() on the same object writes through LIST_POISON pprev. The defensive change here: - Use hlist_del_init_rcu() instead of hlist_del_rcu() on bydst, bysrc, byseq and byspi so a second deletion is a no-op rather than a write through LIST_POISON pprev. The byseq/byspi nodes are already initialised in xfrm_state_alloc(). - Test hlist_unhashed() rather than the value predicate for byseq/byspi, so the unhash decision tracks list state rather than mutable scalar fields. Empirical verification: applied this patch on top of v6.12.47, rebuilt, and re-ran the same syzkaller harness for 1h16m on a previously-crashy configuration that produced ~100 hits each of slab-use-after-free Read in xfrm_alloc_spi / Read in __xfrm_state_lookup / Write in __xfrm_state_delete. After the patch, 7.1M execs across 32 VMs at ~1550 exec/sec produced zero xfrm_state UAF/OOB hits. /proc/slabinfo confirms the xfrm_state slab is actively allocated and freed during the run (~143 KiB resident), so the fuzzer is still exercising those code paths -- they just no longer crash. Reproduction: - Linux 6.12.47 x86_64 + KASAN_GENERIC + KASAN_INLINE + KCOV - syzkaller @ 746545b8b1e4c3a128db8652b340d3df90ce61db - 32 QEMU/KVM VMs x 2 vCPU on AWS c5.metal bare metal - 9 unique signatures collected in ~9h, all within xfrm_state lifecycle

1.5/ 10 priority

Sources & remediation

Weakness type (CWE)
CWE-416CWE-763

Priority

LOW

Exploitation

NONE

PoC

YES

Patch

AVAILABLE

Momentum

NONE

Are you affected?

If you run products in this scope, you should treat this CVE as relevant to your environment.

  • linux_kernel

Threat summary

  • Public PoC is present in monitored signal
  • 2 mentions across 1 observed day

What's happening

  • PoC mentioned or linked in 1 signal
  • General: 1 classified signal
  • 2 total mentions across 1 day

Affected systems

Vendors
Products
linux_kernel

1 version affected across 1 product

Deep dive

Activity timeline2 mentions / 1d
01122Mentions · 2026-06-30: 2PoC Mentioned / Linked · 2026-06-30: 106-30
Signal classification2 categories
General
150.0%
PoC
150.0%
Referenced assets1 URL
Full discourse2 posts
  • bluedragonsec@bluedragonsec
    PoC

    Does anybody have any working repro for CVE-2026-46116 or maybe.. Can you find repro for CVE-2026-46116 ? in case you have one. please DM me, I'm ready to send some USD $ for that ! Thank you.

    Post summary

    User is requesting a working proof‑of‑concept for CVE‑2026‑46116 in exchange for payment.

    0000044
    65 followersView on X
  • bluedragonsec@bluedragonsec
    General

    Can anybody help me to give me the repro for CVE-2026-46116 ? I'm working on an exploit but this one can not be finished without a repro code : https://github.com/bluedragonsecurity/unfinished_exploits/tree/main/CVE-2026-46116-unfinished-exploit in case you have a repro for this cve, please dm me.

    Post summary

    The user is requesting a repro for CVE-2026-46116 and shared a link to an unfinished exploit repository, but no concrete PoC, exploit tool, or technical details are provided.

    0000048
    65 followersView on X
CPE platform detail3 entries

3 of 3 entries

PartVendorProductVersionTarget SWTarget HW
OSlinuxlinux_kernel---
OSlinuxlinux_kernel7.1--
OSlinuxlinux_kernel7.1--

Explore more