CVE-2026-64210
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/mlx5e: xsk: Fix unlocked writing to ICOSQ During napi poll, when the affinity changes and there's still XSK work to be done, we trigger an ICOSQ interrupt on the new CPU. However, this triggering on the ICOSQ is done unprotected. There are 2 such races: A) mlx5e_trigger_irq() is called while mlx5e_xsk_alloc_rx_mpwqe() is running from a different CPU due to affinity change. This can happen because IRQ triggering is done after napi_complete_done(). At this point the NAPI can be scheduled on a different CPU. Like this: CPU A (old affinity, NAPI tail) CPU B (new affinity, fresh NAPI) ------------------------------- -------------------------------- napi_complete_done() clears SCHED mlx5e_cq_arm(...) napi_schedule_prep() sets SCHED mlx5e_napi_poll() mlx5e_xsk_alloc_rx_mpwqe() mlx5e_icosq_sync_lock() // noop memcpy 640 B UMR body advance sq->pc by 10 mlx5e_trigger_irq(&c->icosq) wqe_info[pi] = {NOP, 1} mlx5e_post_nop() advances sq->pc B) mlx5e_trigger_irq() is called on the ICOSQ when mlx5e_trigger_napi_icosq() is running. The obvious fix would be to lock the ICOSQ. But ICOSQ has an optimized locking scheme that doesn't work for this scenario. Kick the async ICOSQ instead which is always locked. This issue was noticed in the wild with the following splat: netdevice: ge-0-0-1: Bad OP in ICOSQ CQE: 0xd WARNING: drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_rx.c:826 [...] [...] Call Trace: <IRQ> mlx5e_napi_poll+0x11d/0x7f0 [mlx5_core] __napi_poll+0x30/0x200 ? skb_defer_free_flush+0x9c/0xc0 net_rx_action+0x2fe/0x3f0 handle_softirqs+0xd8/0x340 __irq_exit_rcu+0xbc/0xe0 common_interrupt+0x85/0xa0 </IRQ> <TASK> asm_common_interrupt+0x26/0x40 [...] ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- mlx5_core 0000:08:00.0 ge-0-0-1: Error cqe on cqn 0x548, ci 0x2022, qn 0x8f4, opcode 0xd, syndrome 0x2, vendor syndrome 0x68 00000000: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00000010: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00000020: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00000030: 00 00 00 00 01 00 68 02 01 00 08 f4 de 14 59 d2 WQE DUMP: WQ size 16384 WQ cur size 0, WQE index 0x1e14, len: 64 00000000: 00 00 00 01 d9 ed 80 02 00 00 00 01 d9 ed 90 02 00000010: 00 00 00 01 d9 ed a0 02 00 00 00 01 d9 ed b0 02 00000020: 00 00 00 01 d9 ed c0 02 00 00 00 01 d9 ed d0 02 00000030: 00 00 00 01 d9 ed e0 02 00 00 00 01 d9 ed f0 02 mlx5_core 0000:08:00.0 ge-0-0-1: Error cqe on cqn 0x548, ci 0x2023, qn 0x8f4, opcode 0xd, syndrome 0x5, vendor syndrome 0xf9 00000000: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00000010: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00000020: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00000030: 00 00 00 00 01 00 f9 05 01 00 08 f4 de 15 cf d2
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 · low confidenceAffected 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>= 5.3, < 7.0.11= 7.1CVSS 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.
From vendor data7.0.11
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-64210 — 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-2026-64210 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