CVE-2026-72071
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: tracing/user_events: Fix use-after-free in user_event_mm_dup() user_event_mm_dup() walks the parent mm's enabler list locklessly under rcu_read_lock() during fork() (from copy_process()); it does not take event_mutex: rcu_read_lock(); list_for_each_entry_rcu(enabler, &old_mm->enablers, mm_enablers_link) enabler->event = user_event_get(orig->event); user_event_enabler_destroy() removes an enabler from that list with list_del_rcu() and then, without waiting for a grace period, drops the enabler's user_event reference with user_event_put() and frees the enabler with kfree(). A reader that loaded the enabler before the list_del_rcu() can still be walking it, which leads to two use-after-frees: - kfree(enabler) frees the enabler while that reader dereferences enabler->event. - user_event_put() may drop the last reference to the user_event, which is then freed (via delayed_destroy_user_event() on a work queue), while the same reader does user_event_get(orig->event) on it. Both are reachable by an unprivileged task that can open user_events_data: one multithreaded process that registers an enabler and then concurrently unregisters it and calls fork() triggers the race. KASAN reports a slab-use-after-free in user_event_mm_dup() during clone(), with a "refcount_t: addition on 0" warning when the user_event is freed. The enabler use-after-free was found first; the user_event one was reported by XIAO WU, and the earlier enabler-only fix did not address it. Defer both the user_event_put() and the kfree(enabler) to a work item queued with queue_rcu_work(), so they run only after an RCU grace period, once all readers walking the enabler list have finished. The put must run in process context because user_event_put() takes event_mutex on the last reference, so a work queue is used rather than call_rcu(). The now-unlocked put lets the locked argument of user_event_enabler_destroy() be removed; all callers are updated.
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.
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
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/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 $4,900. 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-2026-72071 — 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-2026-72071 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