Skip to content

CVE-2026-64560

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: posix-cpu-timers: Prevent UAF caused by non-leader exec() race Wongi and Jungwoo decoded and reported a non-leader exec() related race which can result in an UAF: sys_timer_delete() exec() posix_cpu_timer_del() // Observes old leader p = pid_task(pid, pid_type); de_thread() switch_leader(); release_task(old_leader) __exit_signal(old_leader) sighand = lock(old_leader, sighand); posix_cpu_timers*_exit(); sighand = lock_task_sighand(p) unhash_task(old_leader); sh = lock(p, sighand) old_leader->sighand = NULL; unlock(sighand); (p->sighand == NULL) unlock(sh) return NULL; // Returns without action if(!sighand) return 0; free_posix_timer(); This is "harmless" unless the deleted timer was armed and enqueued in p->signal because on exec() a TGID targeted timer is inherited. As sys_timer_delete() freed the underlying posix timer object run_posix_cpu_timers() or any timerqueue related add/delete operations on other timers will access the freed object's timerqueue node, which results in an UAF. There is a similar problem vs. posix_cpu_timer_set(). For regular posix timers it just transiently returns -ESRCH to user space, but for the use case in do_cpu_nanosleep() it's the same UAF just that the k_itimer is allocated on the stack. Also posix_cpu_timer_rearm() fails to rearm the timer, which means it stops to expire. While debating solutions Frederic pointed out another problem: posix_cpu_timer_del(tmr) __exit_signal(p) posix_cpu_timers*_exit(p); unhash_task(p); p->sighand = NULL; sh = lock_task_sighand(p) sighand = p->sighand; if (!sighand) return NULL; lock(sighand); if (!sh) WARN_ON_ONCE(timer_queued(tmr)); On weakly ordered architectures it is not guaranteed that posix_cpu_timer_del() will observe the stores in posix_cpu_timers*_exit() when p->sighand is observed as NULL, which means the WARN() can be a false positive. Solve these issues by: 1) Changing the store in __exit_signal() to smp_store_release(). 2) Adding a smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep() into the !sighand path of lock_task_sighand(). 3) Creating a helper function for looking up the task and locking sighand which does not return when sighand == NULL. Instead it retries the task lookup and only if that fails it gives up. 4) Using that helper in the three affected functions. #1/#2 ensures that the reader side which observes sighand == NULL also observes all preceeding stores, i.e. the stores in posix_cpu_timers*_exit() and the ones in unhash_task(). #3 ensures that the above described non-leader exec() situation is handled gracefully. When the task lookup returns the old leader, but sighand == NULL then it retries. In the non-leader exec() case the subsequent task lookup will observe the new leader due to #1/#2. In normal exit() scenarios the subsequent lookup fails. When the task lookup fails, the function also checks whether the timer is still enqueued and issues a warning if that's the case. Unfortunately there is nothing which can be done about it, but as the task is already not longer visible the timer should not be accessed anymore. This check also requires memory ordering, which is not provided when the first lookup fails. To achieve that the check is preceeded by a smp_rmb() which pairs with the smp_wmb() in write_seqlock() in __exit_signal(). That ensures that the stores in posix_cpu_timers*_exit() are visible. The history of the non-leader exec() issue goes back to the early days of posix CPU timers, which stored a pointer to the group leader task in the timer. That obviously fails when a non-leader exec() switches the leader. commit e0a70217107e ("posix-cpu-timers: workaround to suppress the problems with mt exec") added a temporary workaround for that in 2010 which surv ---truncated---

CVSS
7.8Highscored by the publisher (CNA)
Exploited in the wild
Not knownUnvetted proof-of-concept code on GitHub; not in CISA KEV
EPSS
0.50%chance of exploitation in the next 30 daystop 57% of scored CVEsFIRST score of 11 Nov 2026
Fix
Fixed in < 5.7, >= 5.10.262 and <= 5.10.*, >= 5.15.213 and <= 5.15.*per the vendor; 6 more listed below
Published
29 Jul 2026analysed here 12 Nov 2026

Do first. Upgrade to a fixed release: < 5.7, >= 5.10.262 and <= 5.10.*, >= 5.15.213 and <= 5.15.*, >= 6.1.180 and <= 6.1.* (and 5 more below).

Summary

Triage

Exploitable
At runtime
Attack vector
local
Weakness
Can a WAF block it?
No. See why

The summary, impact and action text on this page are written by our AI analysis pipeline, or taken from the NVD description when a CVE was imported from NVD. They are not the vendor's wording: check them against the sources. A longer AI executive summary and technical analysis are generated for signed-in accounts on the Max plan.

Affected products

ProductAffected versions
Linux>= 55e8c8eb2c7b6bf30e99423ccfe7ca032f498f59 and < 67aa823e3e8c229c6d374df79c804f6721cb83b6>= 55e8c8eb2c7b6bf30e99423ccfe7ca032f498f59 and < d8bcb28abad857f1415da7656f19b2ada90af04f>= 55e8c8eb2c7b6bf30e99423ccfe7ca032f498f59 and < cc35ddbc497311e0b6b9a6a6a4f4d1217d6ab1aa>= 55e8c8eb2c7b6bf30e99423ccfe7ca032f498f59 and < 12a891c773aeb5823d63dbd0cb2ab931d6c21c9b>= 55e8c8eb2c7b6bf30e99423ccfe7ca032f498f59 and < e74443f5db0037c556ef436fa64b88bf4ea08f83>= 55e8c8eb2c7b6bf30e99423ccfe7ca032f498f59 and < 6a7ecc25abe6f0fecc6e62a05096987200edbd02>= 55e8c8eb2c7b6bf30e99423ccfe7ca032f498f59 and < ad1cafa1bdaa71da85d71cac053838bbe97852b6>= 55e8c8eb2c7b6bf30e99423ccfe7ca032f498f59 and < 920f893f735e92ba3a1cd9256899a186b161928d5.7Vendor says fixed in: < 5.7, >= 5.10.262 and <= 5.10.*, >= 5.15.213 and <= 5.15.*, >= 6.1.180 and <= 6.1.*, >= 6.6.147 and <= 6.6.*, >= 6.12.100 and <= 6.12.*, >= 6.18.41 and <= 6.18.*, >= 7.1.5 and <= 7.1.*, >= 7.2 and <= *

As published in the CVE Program record. A version outside these ranges is not a statement that it is unaffected — vendors sometimes understate a range, and distribution-backported builds carry upstream numbers that do not reflect what was patched into them.

Fix and mitigation

WAF and other mitigations

Can a WAF block it? No. The attack needs local access to the machine, so a WAF is not on its path.

Also consider: patch

Based on the attack vector (local or physical access). We check Cloudflare, AWS, Google Cloud Armor and Azure; for Akamai, Imperva, Fastly, F5, ask your vendor.

Remediation steps (AI-written)

Step-by-step remediation is generated for accounts on the Max plan, for CVEs that match a technology in their stack. Add this technology to your stack to see the fix checklist.

Exploitation evidence

CISA KEV catalog
Not listed as of our last sync.
Public exploit code
Unvetted proof-of-concept code on GitHub: 22 GitHub proofs of concept
CISA SSVC
exploitation none, automatable no, technical impact totalAssessed by CISA 16 Oct 2026 (SSVC 2.0.3). Exploitation is none, poc (public proof of concept) or active.

Listed so you can judge urgency, not as a recommendation to run anything. GitHub “proofs of concept” are unvetted: some are fake or carry malware. Exploit-DB marks the entries its staff verified.

Timeline

  1. 23 Jul 2026First proof-of-concept repository on GitHub (unvetted)
  2. 29 Jul 2026Published7 days later
  3. 16 Oct 2026CISA SSVC assessment: exploitation none79 days (about 3 months) later
  4. 19 Oct 2026CVE record last updated3 days later
  5. 12 Nov 2026Analysed by vulneraibility.com24 days later

CVSS vector

CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

MetricValueWhat it means
Attack vectorLocalLocal access required (shell, logged-in user).
Attack complexityLowRepeatable attack, no special conditions.
Privileges requiredLowThe attacker needs basic user privileges.
User interactionNoneNo victim action needed.
ScopeUnchangedImpact stays within the vulnerable component.
ConfidentialityHighTotal data disclosure possible.
IntegrityHighComplete modification possible.
AvailabilityHighFull outage possible.

Common questions

Is CVE-2026-64560 being exploited?

Not confirmed. CVE-2026-64560 does not appear in CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog, which records only exploitation that has been observed and reported publicly. That is evidence of absence of a report, not evidence the flaw is unattacked. EPSS currently estimates a 0.50% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days.

How severe is CVE-2026-64560?

CVE-2026-64560 is rated High with a CVSS score of 7.8. Severity describes how bad exploitation would be, not how likely it is: pair it with exploitation evidence before deciding what to patch first.

Is there a patch for CVE-2026-64560?

Not known from our data. No patch reference has been recorded for CVE-2026-64560, which is not the same as no patch existing — a fix may have shipped without a tagged reference, or after this record was written. The vendor advisory is the only authority on whether a fix exists, and mitigations may be available regardless.

Exploitation status reflects CISA's KEV catalog as we last synced it. Check the catalog directly.

References

NVDCVE.orgCVE DetailsSource

11 references in the CVE record, grouped by the tags the record gives them.

Other links (11)

Show 5 more

Where the data on this page comes from

Summary, impact and triage tags: written by our AI analysis pipeline from the sources above. Check them against the sources.

Similar CVEs

Get CVEs like this by email. Join the free digest: the CVEs we flag as major, all CVSS 8.0 or higher, in up to three emails a day (sent at 05:00, 11:00 and 15:00 UTC). Matching alerts to the products you run needs an account, and accounts are invite-only during the beta.

© 2026 vulneraibility.com