CVE-2026-68386

bpf, sockmap: Reject unhashed UDP sockets on sockmap update

N/A
Published: August 10, 2026 at 12:04 PM UTC
Updated: August 19, 2026 at 05:20 PM UTC
1 product affected across 1 vendorLinux Kernel

Using Linux by Linux?

Get instant alerts when new vulnerabilities affect Linux - before attackers find them.

Real-time alertsTrack your software stackFree plan available
Severity
N/A
Exploit prediction
EPSS 0.2%

Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: bpf, sockmap: Reject unhashed UDP sockets on sockmap update UDP sockets get SOCK_RCU_FREE set when (auto-)bound. This means sk_is_refcounted(unbound) = true, while sk_is_refcounted(bound) = false. Because sockmap accepts unbound UDP sockets, a BPF program can increment a socket's refcount via lookup. If the socket is subsequently bound, the transition from unbound to bound causes bpf_sk_release() to skip the decrement of the refcount, causing a memory leak. unreferenced object 0xffff88810bc2eb40 (size 1984): comm "test_progs", pid 2451, jiffies 4295320596 hex dump (first 32 bytes): 7f 00 00 01 7f 00 00 01 d2 04 1b b7 04 d2 00 00 ................ 02 00 01 40 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ...@............ backtrace (crc bdee079d): kmem_cache_alloc_noprof+0x557/0x660 sk_prot_alloc+0x69/0x240 sk_alloc+0x30/0x460 inet_create+0x2ce/0xf80 __sock_create+0x25b/0x5c0 __sys_socket+0x119/0x1d0 __x64_sys_socket+0x72/0xd0 do_syscall_64+0xa1/0x5f0 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e Instead of special-casing for refcounted sockets, reject unhashed UDP sockets during sockmap updates, as there is no benefit to supporting those. This effectively reverts the commit under Fixes, with two exceptions: 1. sock_map_sk_state_allowed() maintains a fall-through `return true`. 2. In the spirit of commit b8b8315e39ff ("bpf, sockmap: Remove unhash handler for BPF sockmap usage"), the proto::unhash BPF handler is not reintroduced. Historical note: this issue is related to commit 67312adc96b5 ("bpf: reject unhashed sockets in bpf_sk_assign").

Affected

Our own answer: ranges merged, affected separated from platform-only, with confidence and review flags.

5.15 ≤ v < 6.1.1835.15 ≤ v < 6.12.1015.15 ≤ v < 6.18.425.15 ≤ v < 6.6.1485.15 ≤ v < 7.1.65.15 ≤ v < 7.20c48eefae712c2fd91480346a07a1a9cd0f9470b5.15
Vendor states this is fixed in 17b7ef6b86112a4e61cee1e9009a4b318e3225c5 (fixed)
Vendor states this is fixed in 2271276ac5279d2d204be7739a1a28d4ef6cf608 (fixed)
Vendor states this is fixed in 250474c69bc3fc48a5fc21d7c349f279caad947a (fixed)
Vendor states this is fixed in 66efd3368ae10d05e08fbe6425b50fdec7186ac7 (fixed)
Vendor states this is fixed in 7ffe529e7127411806c8692fb1490f552c629dc2 (fixed)
Vendor states this is fixed in 8692655da369961128658cf8539334b6a960ecb0 (fixed)
Vendor states this is fixed in 5.15 (unaffected)
Vendor states this is fixed in 6.1.183 (unaffected)
Vendor states this is fixed in 6.12.101 (unaffected)
Vendor states this is fixed in 6.18.42 (unaffected)
Vendor states this is fixed in 6.6.148 (unaffected)
Vendor states this is fixed in 7.1.6 (unaffected)
Vendor states this is fixed in 7.2 (unaffected)

Remediation

No guide yet

No remediation guidance has been written for this CVE yet, and no fixed version or vendor advisory is recorded against it.

Quick Info

StatusRECEIVED

Get alerted

Stop reading CVE feeds looking for your own stack

Track the products you run and VulnTracker tells you when a new CVE affects them — with what is known about fixing it, and nothing about the rest.

Free plan, no card