CVE-2026-23198
CVE Descriptions
KVM: Don't clobber irqfd routing type when deassigning irqfd
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: KVM: Don't clobber irqfd routing type when deassigning irqfd When deassigning a KVM_IRQFD, don't clobber the irqfd's copy of the IRQ's routing entry as doing so breaks kvm_arch_irq_bypass_del_producer() on x86 and arm64, which explicitly look for KVM_IRQ_ROUTING_MSI. Instead, to handle a concurrent routing update, verify that the irqfd is still active before consuming the routing information. As evidenced by the x86 and arm64 bugs, and another bug in kvm_arch_update_irqfd_routing() (see below), clobbering the entry type without notifying arch code is surprising and error prone. As a bonus, checking that the irqfd is active provides a convenient location for documenting _why_ KVM must not consume the routing entry for an irqfd that is in the process of being deassigned: once the irqfd is deleted from the list (which happens *before* the eventfd is detached), it will no longer receive updates via kvm_irq_routing_update(), and so KVM could deliver an event using stale routing information (relative to KVM_SET_GSI_ROUTING returning to userspace). As an even better bonus, explicitly checking for the irqfd being active fixes a similar bug to the one the clobbering is trying to prevent: if an irqfd is deactivated, and then its routing is changed, kvm_irq_routing_update() won't invoke kvm_arch_update_irqfd_routing() (because the irqfd isn't in the list). And so if the irqfd is in bypass mode, IRQs will continue to be posted using the old routing information. As for kvm_arch_irq_bypass_del_producer(), clobbering the routing type results in KVM incorrectly keeping the IRQ in bypass mode, which is especially problematic on AMD as KVM tracks IRQs that are being posted to a vCPU in a list whose lifetime is tied to the irqfd. Without the help of KASAN to detect use-after-free, the most common sympton on AMD is a NULL pointer deref in amd_iommu_update_ga() due to the memory for irqfd structure being re-allocated and zeroed, resulting in irqfd->irq_bypass_data being NULL when read by avic_update_iommu_vcpu_affinity(): BUG: kernel NULL pointer dereference, address: 0000000000000018 #PF: supervisor read access in kernel mode #PF: error_code(0x0000) - not-present page PGD 40cf2b9067 P4D 40cf2b9067 PUD 408362a067 PMD 0 Oops: Oops: 0000 [#1] SMP CPU: 6 UID: 0 PID: 40383 Comm: vfio_irq_test Tainted: G U W O 6.19.0-smp--5dddc257e6b2-irqfd #31 NONE Tainted: [U]=USER, [W]=WARN, [O]=OOT_MODULE Hardware name: Google, Inc. Arcadia_IT_80/Arcadia_IT_80, BIOS 34.78.2-0 09/05/2025 RIP: 0010:amd_iommu_update_ga+0x19/0xe0 Call Trace:CVE Informations
Related Weaknesses
| Weakness Name | Source | |
|---|---|---|
| NULL Pointer Dereference The product dereferences a pointer that it expects to be valid but is NULL. |
Metrics
| Metrics | Score | Severity | CVSS Vector | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| V3.1 | 7.8 | HIGH |
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
More informations
Base: Exploitabilty MetricsThe Exploitability metrics reflect the characteristics of the thing that is vulnerable, which we refer to formally as the vulnerable component. Attack Vector This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. Local The vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities. Attack Complexity This metric describes the conditions beyond the attacker’s control that must exist in order to exploit the vulnerability. Low Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success when attacking the vulnerable component. Privileges Required This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess before successfully exploiting the vulnerability. Low The attacker requires privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources. User Interaction This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable component. None The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any user. Base: Scope MetricsThe Scope metric captures whether a vulnerability in one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope. Scope Formally, a security authority is a mechanism (e.g., an application, an operating system, firmware, a sandbox environment) that defines and enforces access control in terms of how certain subjects/actors (e.g., human users, processes) can access certain restricted objects/resources (e.g., files, CPU, memory) in a controlled manner. All the subjects and objects under the jurisdiction of a single security authority are considered to be under one security scope. If a vulnerability in a vulnerable component can affect a component which is in a different security scope than the vulnerable component, a Scope change occurs. Intuitively, whenever the impact of a vulnerability breaches a security/trust boundary and impacts components outside the security scope in which vulnerable component resides, a Scope change occurs. Unchanged An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority. Base: Impact MetricsThe Impact metrics capture the effects of a successfully exploited vulnerability on the component that suffers the worst outcome that is most directly and predictably associated with the attack. Analysts should constrain impacts to a reasonable, final outcome which they are confident an attacker is able to achieve. Confidentiality Impact This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information resources managed by a software component due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. High There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server. Integrity Impact This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. High There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component. Availability Impact This metric measures the impact to the availability of the impacted component resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. High There is a total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable). Temporal MetricsThe Temporal metrics measure the current state of exploit techniques or code availability, the existence of any patches or workarounds, or the confidence in the description of a vulnerability. Environmental MetricsThese metrics enable the analyst to customize the CVSS score depending on the importance of the affected IT asset to a user’s organization, measured in terms of Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability. |
|
| V3.1 | 5.5 | MEDIUM |
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
More informations
Base: Exploitabilty MetricsThe Exploitability metrics reflect the characteristics of the thing that is vulnerable, which we refer to formally as the vulnerable component. Attack Vector This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. Local The vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities. Attack Complexity This metric describes the conditions beyond the attacker’s control that must exist in order to exploit the vulnerability. Low Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success when attacking the vulnerable component. Privileges Required This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess before successfully exploiting the vulnerability. Low The attacker requires privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources. User Interaction This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable component. None The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any user. Base: Scope MetricsThe Scope metric captures whether a vulnerability in one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope. Scope Formally, a security authority is a mechanism (e.g., an application, an operating system, firmware, a sandbox environment) that defines and enforces access control in terms of how certain subjects/actors (e.g., human users, processes) can access certain restricted objects/resources (e.g., files, CPU, memory) in a controlled manner. All the subjects and objects under the jurisdiction of a single security authority are considered to be under one security scope. If a vulnerability in a vulnerable component can affect a component which is in a different security scope than the vulnerable component, a Scope change occurs. Intuitively, whenever the impact of a vulnerability breaches a security/trust boundary and impacts components outside the security scope in which vulnerable component resides, a Scope change occurs. Unchanged An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority. Base: Impact MetricsThe Impact metrics capture the effects of a successfully exploited vulnerability on the component that suffers the worst outcome that is most directly and predictably associated with the attack. Analysts should constrain impacts to a reasonable, final outcome which they are confident an attacker is able to achieve. Confidentiality Impact This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information resources managed by a software component due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. None There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component. Integrity Impact This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. None There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component. Availability Impact This metric measures the impact to the availability of the impacted component resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. High There is a total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable). Temporal MetricsThe Temporal metrics measure the current state of exploit techniques or code availability, the existence of any patches or workarounds, or the confidence in the description of a vulnerability. Environmental MetricsThese metrics enable the analyst to customize the CVSS score depending on the importance of the affected IT asset to a user’s organization, measured in terms of Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability. |
nvd@nist.gov |
EPSS
EPSS Score
EPSS Percentile
Products Mentioned
Configuraton 0
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 4.4 To (excluding) 5.10.250
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.11 To (excluding) 5.15.200
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 5.16 To (excluding) 6.1.163
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.2 To (excluding) 6.6.124
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.7 To (excluding) 6.12.70
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version From (including) 6.13 To (excluding) 6.18.10
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.19
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.19
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.19
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.19
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.19
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.19
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.19
Linux>>Linux_kernel >> Version 6.19
