CVE-2026-46106
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: eventfs: Hold eventfs_mutex and SRCU when remount walks events Commit 340f0c7067a9 ("eventfs: Update all the eventfs_inodes from the events descriptor") had eventfs_set_attrs() recurse through ei->children on remount. The walk only holds the rcu_read_lock() taken by tracefs_apply_options() over tracefs_inodes, which is wrong: - list_for_each_entry over ei->children races with the list_del_rcu() in eventfs_remove_rec() -- LIST_POISON1 deref, same shape as d2603279c7d6. - eventfs_inodes are freed via call_srcu(&eventfs_srcu, ...). rcu_read_lock() does not extend an SRCU grace period, so ti->private can be reclaimed under the walk. - The writes to ei->attr race with eventfs_set_attr(), which holds eventfs_mutex. Reproducer: while :; do mount -o remount,uid=$((RANDOM%1000)) /sys/kernel/tracing; done & while :; do echo "p:kp submit_bio" > /sys/kernel/tracing/kprobe_events echo > /sys/kernel/tracing/kprobe_events done Wrap the events portion of tracefs_apply_options() in eventfs_remount_lock()/_unlock() that take eventfs_mutex and srcu_read_lock(&eventfs_srcu). eventfs_set_attrs() doesn't sleep so the nested rcu_read_lock() is fine; lockdep_assert_held() pins the contract. Comment in tracefs_drop_inode() said "RCU cycle" -- it is SRCU.
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>= 6.6.35, < 6.6.140>= 6.9.6, < 6.12.88>= 6.13, < 6.18.30>= 6.19, < 7.0.7CVSS 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 · scoped6.6.1406.12.886.18.30
Upgrade to kernel 6.6.140+, 6.12.88+, 6.18.30+, or 7.0.7+ depending on which branch you are using
- 1. Identify the currently running kernel version using `uname -r`
- 2. Check if the running kernel version is within any of the affected ranges: >= 6.6.35 and < 6.6.140, >= 6.9.6 and < 6.12.88, >= 6.13 and < 6.18.30, or >= 6.19 and < 7.0.7
- 3. Schedule a maintenance window for kernel upgrade (this requires system reboot)
- 4. Update the system package manager and install a kernel version >= 6.6.140 (for 6.6.x branch), >= 6.12.88 (for 6.12.x branch), >= 6.18.30 (for 6.18.x branch), or >= 7.0.7 (for 7.0.x branch)
- 5. Reboot the system into the new kernel
- 6. Verify the fix is applied by checking the kernel version with `uname -r` and confirming it is no longer in the affected version range
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-2026-46106 — 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-2026-46106 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