CVE-2026-74568
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: KVM: arm64: vgic: Fix race between LPI release and re-registration Fix a potential race between decrementing an LPI's reference count and evicting that structure from the LPI xarray. LPI structures are maintained in the VGIC LPI xarray (dist->lpi_xa). When the reference count of an LPI structure drops to zero, vgic_release_lpi_locked() removes the structure from the xarray and frees it under the xarray lock. However, the release of an LPI can race with a concurrent LPI re-registration with the same INTID via vgic_add_lpi() on another CPU, since the reference count drop and the xarray eviction are not performed in a single atomic step. This can happen e.g. if the guest issues a DISCARD while the LPI is still referenced from a vCPU's active-pending list (ap_list), and the same INTID is re-mapped via MAPTI. Particularly, vgic_release_lpi_locked() is called from two distinct paths: direct release via vgic_put_irq(), and deferred release via vgic_release_deleted_lpis(). During direct release, the issue can result in deleting a newly registered LPI from the xarray: CPU0 (Releasing LPI) CPU1 (Adding new LPI) ==================== ===================== vgic_put_irq() __vgic_put_irq() refcount_dec_and_test() vgic_add_lpi() xa_lock_irqsave() old_irq = xa_load(.., intid) vgic_try_get_irq_ref(old_irq) == false new IRQ inserted --> __xa_store(.., intid, ..) xa_unlock_irqrestore() xa_lock_irqsave(); vgic_release_lpi_locked() __xa_erase(.., irq->intid) <-- BUG: new IRQ is erased kfree_rcu(old_irq) During the deferred release path, the old IRQ can be leaked: CPU0 (Releasing LPI) CPU1 (Adding new LPI) ==================== ===================== vgic_put_irq_norelease() __vgic_put_irq() refcount_dec_and_test() irq->pending_release = true vgic_add_lpi() xa_lock_irqsave() old_irq = xa_load(.., intid) vgic_try_get_irq_ref(oldirq) == false BUG: old IRQ overwritten --> __xa_store(.., intid, ..) xa_unlock_irqrestore() vgic_release_deleted_lpis() xa_lock_irqsave() xa_for_each() { .. } <-- old IRQ with pending_release = true is gone, so it cannot be released To fix the direct release path, move the reference count drop inside the xarray lock, making sure that vgic_add_lpi() never encounters the to-be-released LPI. In the deferred release path, the refcount drop must happen under a raw spinlock, so the xarray lock cannot be grabbed, and the same solution does not work. Instead, update vgic_add_lpi(), so that if it evicts an LPI from the xarray, it takes on the responsibility of freeing it. Consequently, an LPI may now be freed concurrently after a deferred release drops the refcount, so accessing the pending_release field is no longer safe from use-after-free. Delete all uses of the flag, and update vgic_release_deleted_lpis() to identify orphaned LPIs purely based on their refcount.
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
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/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 $5,750. 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-2026-74568 — 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-2026-74568 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