CVE-2026-68170
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: mptcp: fix stale skb->sk reference on subflow close The backlog list is updated by mptcp_data_ready() under mptcp_data_lock(). The cleanup of backlog references to a closing subflow, however, was performed in mptcp_close_ssk(), before __mptcp_close_ssk() acquires the ssk lock, and while holding neither the ssk lock nor mptcp_data_lock(). Because that traversal ran without mptcp_data_lock(), concurrent softirq RX processing on another CPU (subflow_data_ready() -> mptcp_data_ready() -> __mptcp_add_backlog(), under mptcp_data_lock()) could add a backlog entry referencing the ssk while the cleanup loop was in progress. Such an entry could be missed by the cleanup, or the concurrent list update could corrupt the traversal, leaving skb->sk pointing at the ssk after it is freed. A later mptcp_backlog_purge() then dereferences the stale pointer, triggering a warning in inet_sock_destruct() (ssk->sk_rmem_alloc != 0) followed by a use-after-free in mptcp_backlog_purge(). Fix this by moving the backlog cleanup into __mptcp_close_ssk(), after subflow->closing is set to 1 and while the ssk lock is still held, serialized under mptcp_data_lock(). The cleanup runs only on the push path (MPTCP_CF_PUSH), where backlog references accumulate; on other teardown paths the caller already handles cleanup. With subflow->closing set and mptcp_data_lock() held across the purge, any concurrent mptcp_data_ready() either completes its enqueue before the purge runs and is caught, or observes closing=1 and bails out. Once mptcp_data_unlock() is reached, no new skb referencing the ssk can be enqueued, so the cleanup is exhaustive. Remove the unprotected traversal from mptcp_close_ssk() entirely.
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 confidenceCVSS 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
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/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.
From vendor dataThere is no version to upgrade to and no patch to apply. Every affected install stays exposed until the vendor ships a fix — or somebody else builds one.
Free. We build fixes in the order the community asks for them — and we’ll tell you the moment this one lands.
We develop and verify an original fix where the vendor hasn’t, from $2,300. Deployed to your staging first — never straight to production.
Scope it with usSee what else the community needs solved on the solutions-needed board.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-68170 — 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-2026-68170 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