CVE-2026-53106
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: bpf: Do not allow deleting local storage in NMI Currently, local storage may deadlock when deferring freeing selem or local storage through kfree_rcu(), call_rcu() or call_rcu_tasks_trace() in NMI or reentrant. Since deleting selem in NMI is an unlikely use case, partially mitigate it by returning error when calling from bpf_xxx_storage_delete() helpers in NMI. Note that, it is still possible to deadlock through reentrant. A full mitigation requires returning error when irqs_disabled() is true, which, however is too heavy-handed for bpf_xxx_storage_delete(). The long-term solution requires _nolock versions of call_rcu. Another possible solution is to defer the free through irq_work [0], but it would grow the size of selem, which is non-ideal. The check is only needed in bpf_selem_unlink(), which is used by helpers and syscalls. bpf_selem_unlink_nofail() is fine as it is called during map and owner tear down that never run in NMI or reentrant. [0] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected]/
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 · high confidenceThe Linux kernel's BPF subsystem has a deadlock vulnerability in local storage deletion. When bpf_xxx_storage_delete() helpers are called from NMI (Non-Maskable Interrupt) contexts or reentrantly, the use of kfree_rcu(), call_rcu(), or call_rcu_tasks_trace() can deadlock. The patch adds a check in bpf_selem_unlink() to return an error when called from NMI, preventing the deadlock condition.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
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>= 5.13, < 7.0.10CVSS 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
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.
-
Check installed kernel versionRun `uname -r` or `cat /proc/version` to get the running kernel versionAffected if The kernel version is >= 5.13 and < 7.0.10
-
Verify BPF subsystem is activeCheck if BPF is available by running `ls /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/events/bpf/ 2>/dev/null` or `bpftool prog list 2>/dev/null`Affected if BPF is loaded and the kernel version is in the affected range
-
Identify BPF local storage mapsRun `bpftool map show` and look for map types BPF_MAP_TYPE_PERCPU_LOCAL_STORAGE or check BPF tracepoints for local storage usageAffected if BPF local storage maps exist and the kernel is vulnerable
-
Detect NMI-context BPF storage deletionsSearch kernel modules or trace scripts for calls to bpf_local_storage_delete, bpf_htab_map_delete_elem, or similar helpers that may execute in NMI handlersAffected if Code that deletes BPF local storage can run in NMI context and the kernel version is in the affected range
You are affected if running kernel >= 5.13 and < 7.0.10, BPF local storage is in use, and BPF storage deletion can be triggered from NMI context.
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.
dbcve · scoped7.0.10
Apply the kernel patch to add NMI context checking in bpf_selem_unlink(). This prevents BPF local storage deletion from NMI contexts which would otherwise cause deadlocks. Note that reentrant calls are not fully mitigated.
Linux Kernel 7.0.10 or later
- Upgrade the Linux kernel to version 7.0.10 or later
- Verify the fix is included by checking that bpf_selem_unlink() now returns an error when called from NMI context (irqs_disabled() returns true)
- After upgrade, test BPF programs that use bpf_xxx_storage_delete() helpers to ensure they work correctly in non-NMI contexts
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation1.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $2,464.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-53106 — 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-2026-53106 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