CVE-2026-74506
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: afs: Fix UAF when sending a message In afs_make_call(), there's a race with async call reception and destruction. If a call is dispatched that doesn't have call->write_iter set (used to specify the data content for FS.StoreData), then the first rxrpc_kernel_send_data() will not set MSG_MORE in the msghdr. Once rxrpc_send_data() queues the last request packet, the response could come in at any time and cause the call to be completed and put. However, afs_make_call() will look at the call again to see it ->write_iter should be handled - something it's only allowed to do if it has its own ref on the call. Whilst this is the case for synchronous calls, it isn't true for async calls such as FS.FetchData. There's also a potential UAF in afs_make_call() in the event that an asynchronous call is being sent, but the call fails in some way (e.g. it gets aborted from the server). The problem there is that afs_make_call() tries to abort a call if the rxrpc send fails, but the asynchronous notification from rxrpc may have caused the afs_call to be torn down. generic/650 plays games with randomly taking CPUs offline, and can interject a significant delay such that the call is deallocated before afs_make_call() gets to check call->write_iter - and a UAF ensues (caught by KASAN). BUG: KASAN: slab-use-after-free in afs_make_call+0x1c90/0x2210 [kafs] Read of size 8 at addr ffff888035e050e8 by task fsstress/1409 Fix this by making afs_make_op_call() give the op->call its own ref rather than transferring the caller's ref to it and then dropping the ref when afs_make_call() returns. This also means that the afs_make_call() func never loses its ref on the call now.
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-2026-74506 — 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-2026-74506 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