CVE-2026-43385
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: net: Fix rcu_tasks stall in threaded busypoll I was debugging a NIC driver when I noticed that when I enable threaded busypoll, bpftrace hangs when starting up. dmesg showed: rcu_tasks_wait_gp: rcu_tasks grace period number 85 (since boot) is 10658 jiffies old. rcu_tasks_wait_gp: rcu_tasks grace period number 85 (since boot) is 40793 jiffies old. rcu_tasks_wait_gp: rcu_tasks grace period number 85 (since boot) is 131273 jiffies old. rcu_tasks_wait_gp: rcu_tasks grace period number 85 (since boot) is 402058 jiffies old. INFO: rcu_tasks detected stalls on tasks: 00000000769f52cd: .N nvcsw: 2/2 holdout: 1 idle_cpu: -1/64 task:napi/eth2-8265 state:R running task stack:0 pid:48300 tgid:48300 ppid:2 task_flags:0x208040 flags:0x00004000 Call Trace: <TASK> ? napi_threaded_poll_loop+0x27c/0x2c0 ? __pfx_napi_threaded_poll+0x10/0x10 ? napi_threaded_poll+0x26/0x80 ? kthread+0xfa/0x240 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ? ret_from_fork+0x31/0x50 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ? ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30 </TASK> The cause is that in threaded busypoll, the main loop is in napi_threaded_poll rather than napi_threaded_poll_loop, where the latter rarely iterates more than once within its loop. For rcu_softirq_qs_periodic inside napi_threaded_poll_loop to report its qs state, the last_qs must be 100ms behind, and this can't happen because napi_threaded_poll_loop rarely iterates in threaded busypoll, and each time napi_threaded_poll_loop is called last_qs is reset to latest jiffies. This patch changes so that in threaded busypoll, last_qs is saved in the outer napi_threaded_poll, and whether busy_poll_last_qs is NULL indicates whether napi_threaded_poll_loop is called for busypoll. This way last_qs would not reset to latest jiffies on each invocation of napi_threaded_poll_loop.
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>= 6.19, < 6.19.9= 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
- 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
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 · scoped6.19.9
Linux Kernel 6.19.9 or later for 6.19.x branch, or subsequent release in 7.x branch
- Identify the current kernel version using `uname -r`
- Back up critical data and configurations
- Upgrade Linux kernel to version 6.19.9 or later using your distribution's package manager (e.g., `apt update && apt upgrade`, `yum update`, or `dnf update`)
- Reboot the system to load the new kernel
- Verify the new kernel version is running with `uname -r` and confirm it is >= 6.19.9
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-2026-43385 — 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-2026-43385 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