VulnerabilityAwaiting classification

CVE-2026-72139

CRITICAL · 9.8 CVSS v3.1 Developing Published 2026-08-15
No fix yet
No fix has been published. The vendor has not shipped a fixed release or patch. You remain exposed.
See remediation →
100/100
Remediation priority · Urgent
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click 6 days 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: tcp: defer md5sig_info kfree past RCU grace period in tcp_connect The md5+ao reconciliation in tcp_connect() (net/ipv4/tcp_output.c) has two symmetric branches: if (needs_md5) { tcp_ao_destroy_sock(sk, false); } else if (needs_ao) { tcp_clear_md5_list(sk); kfree(rcu_replace_pointer(tp->md5sig_info, NULL, ...)); } Both branches free a per-socket auth-info object while the socket is in TCP_SYN_SENT and is already on the inet ehash (inserted by inet_hash_connect() in tcp_v4_connect()). Both branches are reachable by softirq RX-path readers that load the corresponding info pointer via implicit RCU before bh_lock_sock_nested() is taken. The needs_md5 branch is fixed in the prior patch by re-introducing the call_rcu() free in tcp_ao_destroy_sock(): the equivalent per-key loop runs inside tcp_ao_info_free_rcu(), the RCU callback, so by the time it frees each tcp_ao_key all softirq readers that captured the container have already completed rcu_read_unlock(). The needs_ao branch is not symmetric in the same way. The container free can be deferred via kfree_rcu(md5sig, rcu) -- struct tcp_md5sig_info already has the required rcu member (include/net/tcp.h:1999-2002), and the rest of the tree already does this in the tcp_md5sig_info_add() rollback paths (net/ipv4/tcp_ipv4.c:1410, 1436). But the per-key teardown is done by tcp_clear_md5_list() in process context BEFORE the container's RCU grace period: it walks &md5sig->head and frees each tcp_md5sig_key with bare hlist_del + kfree. A concurrent softirq reader in __tcp_md5_do_lookup() / __tcp_md5_do_lookup_exact() (tcp_ipv4.c:1253, 1298) walks the same list via hlist_for_each_entry_rcu() and races with that bare kfree on the keys themselves -- a per-key slab use-after-free of the same class as the TCP-AO bug, on the same race window. Fix this in two halves: 1. Convert the bare kfree() in tcp_connect() to kfree_rcu() so the md5sig_info container joins the rest of the md5sig lifecycle. The local-variable lift is mechanical and required because kfree_rcu() is a macro that expects an lvalue. 2. Make tcp_clear_md5_list() RCU-safe by replacing hlist_del + kfree(key) with hlist_del_rcu + kfree_rcu(key, rcu). struct tcp_md5sig_key already carries the rcu member (include/net/tcp.h:1995) and tcp_md5_do_del() (net/ipv4/tcp_ipv4.c:1456) already uses kfree_rcu, so this restores the lifecycle invariant the rest of the file follows rather than introducing a one-off. The other caller of tcp_clear_md5_list() is tcp_md5_destruct_sock() (net/ipv4/tcp.c:412), which runs from the sock destructor when the socket is already unhashed and unreachable; the extra grace period there is unnecessary but harmless. Making the helper unconditionally RCU-safe is the cleaner contract. The needs_ao branch is not reachable by the userns reproducer used to demonstrate the AO-side splat (the repro installs both keys but ends up in the needs_md5 branch because the connect peer matches the MD5 key, not the AO key); however the symmetric race exists and a maintainer touching this code should not have to think about which branch escapes RCU and which one does not. [also credits to Qihang, who found that this races with tcp-diag]

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 confidence
Developing — this CVE was published recently and its authoritative NVD entry is still being established, so we're holding a technical summary until the source data settles rather than publish something unreliable. Re-checking after 2026-08-29.

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
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 data
No vendor fix exists The vendor has not published a patch for this.

There 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.

Add your voice

Free. We build fixes in the order the community asks for them — and we’ll tell you the moment this one lands.

Can’t wait

We develop and verify an original fix where the vendor hasn’t, from $5,750. Deployed to your staging first — never straight to production.

Scope it with us

See what else the community needs solved on the solutions-needed board.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-72139 — 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-2026-72139 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