CVE-2026-23114
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedIn the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: arm64/fpsimd: ptrace: Fix SVE writes on !SME systems When SVE is supported but SME is not supported, a ptrace write to the NT_ARM_SVE regset can place the tracee into an invalid state where (non-streaming) SVE register data is stored in FP_STATE_SVE format but TIF_SVE is clear. This can result in a later warning from fpsimd_restore_current_state(), e.g. WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 7214 at arch/arm64/kernel/fpsimd.c:383 fpsimd_restore_current_state+0x50c/0x748 When this happens, fpsimd_restore_current_state() will set TIF_SVE, placing the task into the correct state. This occurs before any other check of TIF_SVE can possibly occur, as other checks of TIF_SVE only happen while the FPSIMD/SVE/SME state is live. Thus, aside from the warning, there is no functional issue. This bug was introduced during rework to error handling in commit: 9f8bf718f2923 ("arm64/fpsimd: ptrace: Gracefully handle errors") ... where the setting of TIF_SVE was moved into a block which is only executed when system_supports_sme() is true. Fix this by removing the system_supports_sme() check. This ensures that TIF_SVE is set for (SVE-formatted) writes to NT_ARM_SVE, at the cost of unconditionally manipulating the tracee's saved svcr value. The manipulation of svcr is benign and inexpensive, and we already do similar elsewhere (e.g. during signal handling), so I don't think it's worth guarding this with system_supports_sme() checks. Aside from the above, there is no functional change. The 'type' argument to sve_set_common() is only set to ARM64_VEC_SME (in ssve_set())) when system_supports_sme(), so the ARM64_VEC_SME case in the switch statement is still unreachable when !system_supports_sme(). When CONFIG_ARM64_SME=n, the only caller of sve_set_common() is sve_set(), and the compiler can constant-fold for the case where type is ARM64_VEC_SVE, removing the logic for other cases.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysisA detailed technical summary for this CVE is being prepared.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data>= 6.16, < 6.18.8= 6.19CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
dbcve · scoped6.18.8
6.18.8+ or 6.20+ (depending on current branch)
- Identify current kernel version using 'uname -r' or 'cat /proc/version'
- If running kernel 6.18.x (>= 6.18 and < 6.18.8), upgrade to kernel 6.18.8 or later stable release
- If running kernel 6.19.x, upgrade to kernel 6.20 or later stable release
- Reboot into the new kernel after upgrade
- Verify the fix is applied by checking the kernel version matches a fixed release
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-23114 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2026-23114 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data