CVE-2026-38637
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 · uneditedAn issue in the pthread_rwlockattr_setpshared() function of relibc commit 61f42d allows attackers to cause a Denial of Service (DoS) via a crafted input.
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 analysis · moderate confidenceA denial-of-service vulnerability exists in relibc's pthread_rwlockattr_setpshared() function (commit 61f42d) due to improper input validation. Attackers can provide crafted input to trigger a crash or hang, causing the affected process or linked application to become unresponsive.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
CVSS 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
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify relibc usageSearch for relibc library files in the system (e.g., librelibc.so, librelibc.a) or check build dependencies/configurations for references to relibcAffected if relibc is present in the environment
-
Determine relibc versionCheck the installed relibc version or git commit hash (look for commit 61f42d in the version history). Use commands like 'git log', 'git rev-parse', or check library version strings if availableAffected if the installed version includes commit 61f42d or is unknown/older than the fix
-
Identify pthread_rwlockattr_setpshared usageSearch codebase for calls to pthread_rwlockattr_setpshared() function. Use grep or static analysis tools to find: 'pthread_rwlockattr_setpshared' in source files or binariesAffected if applications or libraries linked against relibc call pthread_rwlockattr_setpshared()
-
Check input source to pthread_rwlockattr_setpsharedExamine code paths calling pthread_rwlockattr_setpshared() to determine if the second argument (the process-shared attribute value) originates from untrusted user input, network data, or external configurationAffected if the process-shared attribute value is derived from untrusted input without validation
-
Verify process-shared attribute handlingReview code to confirm whether validation exists for the attribute value before passing it to pthread_rwlockattr_setpshared(). Check for checks ensuring the value is either PTHREAD_PROCESS_SHARED or PTHREAD_PROCESS_PRIVATEAffected if no validation is performed on the attribute value before the function call
If relibc with commit 61f42d is in use AND pthread_rwlockattr_setpshared() is called with unvalidated input from untrusted sources, the environment is vulnerable to CVE-2026-38637.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
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.
From vendor dataImplement proper input validation in pthread_rwlockattr_setpshared() to reject invalid values for the process-shared attribute. Validate that the input parameter is a valid pointer and that the value is within acceptable bounds (PTHREAD_PROCESS_SHARED or PTHREAD_PROCESS_PRIVATE).
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,808.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-38637 — 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-2026-38637 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