Linux KernelOperating system · Linux

CVE-2026-45933

HIGH · 7.8 CVSS v3.1 Published 2026-05-27
Fix available
A fix is available. Upgrade to 6.12.75 / 6.18.14 or later.
See remediation →
80/100
Remediation priority · High
Zero-click Patch available

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 · unedited
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: bpf: Preserve id of register in sync_linked_regs() sync_linked_regs() copies the id of known_reg to reg when propagating bounds of known_reg to reg using the off of known_reg, but when known_reg was linked to reg like: known_reg = reg ; both known_reg and reg get same id known_reg += 4 ; known_reg gets off = 4, and its id gets BPF_ADD_CONST now when a call to sync_linked_regs() happens, let's say with the following: if known_reg >= 10 goto pc+2 known_reg's new bounds are propagated to reg but now reg gets BPF_ADD_CONST from the copy. This means if another link to reg is created like: another_reg = reg ; another_reg should get the id of reg but assign_scalar_id_before_mov() sees BPF_ADD_CONST on reg and assigns a new id to it. As reg has a new id now, known_reg's link to reg is broken. If we find new bounds for known_reg, they will not be propagated to reg. This can be seen in the selftest added in the next commit: 0: (85) call bpf_get_prandom_u32#7 ; R0=scalar() 1: (57) r0 &= 255 ; R0=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=255,var_off=(0x0; 0xff)) 2: (bf) r1 = r0 ; R0=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=255,var_off=(0x0; 0xff)) R1=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=255,var_off=(0x0; 0xff)) 3: (07) r1 += 4 ; R1=scalar(id=1+4,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=4,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=259,var_off=(0x0; 0x1ff)) 4: (a5) if r1 < 0xa goto pc+4 ; R1=scalar(id=1+4,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=10,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=259,var_off=(0x0; 0x1ff)) 5: (bf) r2 = r0 ; R0=scalar(id=2,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=6,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=255) R2=scalar(id=2,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=6,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=255) 6: (a5) if r1 < 0xe goto pc+2 ; R1=scalar(id=1+4,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=14,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=259,var_off=(0x0; 0x1ff)) 7: (35) if r0 >= 0xa goto pc+1 ; R0=scalar(id=2,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=6,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=9,var_off=(0x0; 0xf)) 8: (37) r0 /= 0 div by zero When 4 is verified, r1's bounds are propagated to r0 but r0 also gets BPF_ADD_CONST (bug). When 5 is verified, r0 gets a new id (2) and its link with r1 is broken. After 6 we know r1 has bounds [14, 259] and therefore r0 should have bounds [10, 255], therefore the branch at 7 is always taken. But because r0's id was changed to 2, r1's new bounds are not propagated to r0. The verifier still thinks r0 has bounds [6, 255] before 7 and execution can reach div by zero. Fix this by preserving id in sync_linked_regs() like off and subreg_def.

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

A 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
Linux KernelOperating system
Affected:>= 6.11, < 6.12.75>= 6.13, < 6.18.14>= 6.19, < 6.19.4

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
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 · scoped
Upgrade available Upgrade to 6.12.75 / 6.18.14 / 6.19.4 or later
Fixed in 6.12.756.18.146.19.4
Vendor patch git.kernel.org →
Recommended fix High confidence

6.12.75 (for 6.11-6.12 branches), 6.18.14 (for 6.13-6.17 branches), or 6.19.4 (for 6.19 branch)

  1. Identify the current kernel version using 'uname -r'
  2. Determine which kernel branch you are on (6.11.x, 6.12.x, 6.13-6.17.x, or 6.19.x)
  3. If on kernel 6.11.x or 6.12.x, upgrade to kernel version 6.12.75 or later
  4. If on kernel 6.13.x through 6.17.x, upgrade to kernel version 6.18.14 or later
  5. If on kernel 6.19.x, upgrade to kernel version 6.19.4 or later
  6. Reboot the system to load the new kernel
  7. Verify the fix is applied by checking the kernel version and confirming the BPF verifier behavior is corrected
Caveat Standard kernel upgrade risks apply - ensure compatibility with existing modules and software before deploying

Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.

We can perform the upgrade in your staging environment and verify nothing breaks — typical engagement from $1,950. Get the upgrade done

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-45933 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2026-45933 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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