Linux KernelOperating system · Linux
CVE-2026-23326
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: xsk: Fix fragment node deletion to prevent buffer leak After commit b692bf9a7543 ("xsk: Get rid of xdp_buff_xsk::xskb_list_node"), the list_node field is reused for both the xskb pool list and the buffer free list, this causes a buffer leak as described below. xp_free() checks if a buffer is already on the free list using list_empty(&xskb->list_node). When list_del() is used to remove a node from the xskb pool list, it doesn't reinitialize the node pointers. This means list_empty() will return false even after the node has been removed, causing xp_free() to incorrectly skip adding the buffer to the free list. Fix this by using list_del_init() instead of list_del() in all fragment handling paths, this ensures the list node is reinitialized after removal, allowing the list_empty() to work correctly.
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 analysisThe program writes past the bounds of a buffer, overwriting adjacent memory an attacker can turn to their advantage. Crafted input can overwrite control data and redirect execution. Remediation is validating every index and length before a write, plus modern memory-safety mitigations.
General guidance for the out-of-bounds write class — the official description and references above are authoritative for this specific CVE. Want a bespoke review and a reviewed fix? Ask our team →
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
Linux KernelOperating system
>= 6.13.1, < 6.18.17>= 6.19, < 6.19.7= 6.13= 7.0CVSS 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
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/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 · scoped6.18.176.19.7
Linux Kernel 6.18.17 or 6.19.7 (whichever is applicable to your branch)
- 1. Identify the currently running Linux kernel version using 'uname -r'
- 2. If running kernel >= 6.13.1 and < 6.18.17, plan upgrade to kernel 6.18.17 or later
- 3. If running kernel >= 6.19 and < 6.19.7, plan upgrade to kernel 6.19.7 or later
- 4. If running kernel 6.13 or 7.0, upgrade to the next stable release (6.18.17+ or 6.19.7+)
- 5. Obtain the fixed kernel from your distribution's package repositories or kernel.org
- 6. Schedule a maintenance window for kernel upgrade (requires system reboot)
- 7. After reboot, verify the new kernel version is running with 'uname -r'
- 8. Test AF_XDP/xsk functionality to confirm the buffer leak is resolved
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-2026-23326 — 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-2026-23326 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