Linux KernelOperating system · Linux

CVE-2026-64177

MEDIUM · 5.5 CVSS v3.1 Published 2026-07-19
Fix available
A fix is available. Upgrade to 5.10.258 / 5.15.209 or later.
See remediation →
57/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
Zero-click 4 weeks old

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: phonet/pep: disable BH around forwarded sk_receive_skb() The networking receive path is usually run from softirq context, but protocols that take the socket lock may have packets stored in the backlog and processed later from process context. In that case release_sock() -> __release_sock() drops the slock with spin_unlock_bh() and then calls sk->sk_backlog_rcv() with bottom halves enabled. Typical sk_backlog_rcv handlers process the socket whose backlog is being drained, so the BH state at entry is irrelevant for the slocks they touch. pep_do_rcv() is different: when the inbound skb targets an existing PEP pipe, it forwards the skb to a different *child* socket via sk_receive_skb(). That helper takes the child slock with bh_lock_sock_nested(), which is just spin_lock_nested() and assumes BH is already off. The same child slock therefore ends up acquired with BH on (process path) and with BH off (softirq path): process context softirq context --------------- --------------- release_sock(listener) __netif_receive_skb() __release_sock() phonet_rcv() spin_unlock_bh() __sk_receive_skb(listener) [BH now ENABLED] [BH already disabled] sk_backlog_rcv: sk_backlog_rcv: pep_do_rcv() pep_do_rcv() sk_receive_skb(child) sk_receive_skb(child) bh_lock_sock_nested(child) bh_lock_sock_nested(child) => SOFTIRQ-ON-W => IN-SOFTIRQ-W Lockdep flags this as inconsistent lock state, and it can become a real self-deadlock if a softirq on the same CPU tries to receive to the same child socket while its slock is held in the BH-enabled path: WARNING: inconsistent lock state inconsistent {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} -> {IN-SOFTIRQ-W} usage. (slock-AF_PHONET/1){+.?.}-{3:3}, at: __sk_receive_skb+0x1cf/0x900 __sk_receive_skb net/core/sock.c:563 sk_receive_skb include/net/sock.h:2022 [inline] pep_do_rcv net/phonet/pep.c:675 sk_backlog_rcv include/net/sock.h:1190 __release_sock net/core/sock.c:3216 release_sock net/core/sock.c:3815 pep_sock_accept net/phonet/pep.c:879 Wrap the forwarded sk_receive_skb() in local_bh_disable() / local_bh_enable() so the child slock is always acquired with BH off. local_bh_disable() nests safely on the softirq path. Discovered via in-house syzkaller fuzzing; the same root cause also on the linux-6.1.y syzbot dashboard as extid 44f0626dd6284f02663c. Reproduced under KASAN + LOCKDEP + PROVE_LOCKING, reproducer: https://pastebin.com/A3t8xzCR

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:>= 2.6.28, < 5.10.258>= 5.11, < 5.15.209>= 5.16, < 6.1.175>= 6.2, < 6.6.142>= 6.7, < 6.12.92>= 6.13, < 6.18.34>= 6.19, < 7.0.11= 7.1

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
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 · scoped
Upgrade available Upgrade to 5.10.258 / 5.15.209 / 6.1.175 or later
Fixed in 5.10.2585.15.2096.1.175
Recommended fix High confidence

Upgrade to kernel >= 5.10.258, >= 5.15.209, >= 6.1.175, or >= 6.6.142 (depending on your branch)

  1. 1. Identify the currently running kernel version using 'uname -r' or 'cat /proc/version'
  2. 2. Determine which kernel branch your current version belongs to (e.g., 5.10.x, 5.15.x, 6.1.x, 6.2.x)
  3. 3. For Debian/Ubuntu: Run 'apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade' or manually install the specific fixed kernel package for your distribution
  4. 4. For RHEL/CentOS: Run 'yum update kernel' or 'dnf update kernel' to install the latest fixed kernel
  5. 5. For other distributions: Download and install the appropriate kernel RPM/deb from your vendor's security repository
  6. 6. Reboot the system to load the fixed kernel
  7. 7. Verify the new kernel version is running with 'uname -r' and confirm it meets or exceeds the fixed version for your branch (5.10.258, 5.15.209, 6.1.175, or 6.6.142)
Caveat Kernel upgrades may require system reboot and could have compatibility implications with custom modules or specific hardware drivers; test in staging first

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 $1,600. Get the upgrade done

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-64177 — 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-2026-64177 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