Red Hot Cyber
Cybersecurity, Cybercrime News and Vulnerability Analysis
Description: In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: signal: Prevent exec() race Hyunwoo debugged the following KASAN UAF splat: BUG: KASAN: slab-use-after-free in __send_signal_locked+0xb27/0xba0 Write of size 8 at addr ffff888007ed80c8 by task poc/79 ... Call Trace: __send_signal_locked+0xb27/0xba0 do_send_sig_info+0xa7/0x160 do_send_specific+0x76/0xa0 __x64_sys_tgkill+0x193/0x270 ... Allocated by task 80: do_timer_create+0x1a4/0x1030 __x64_sys_timer_create+0x145/0x190 ... Freed by task 12: kmem_cache_free_bulk+0x1f8/0x4a0 kvfree_rcu_bulk+0x14f/0x1c0 kfree_rcu_work+0x128/0x1a0 ... Last potentially related work creation: kvfree_call_rcu+0x39/0x390 __flush_itimer_signals+0x211/0x320 flush_itimer_signals+0x47/0x90 begin_new_exec+0xa6b/0x28c0 It turned out that this happens with a non-leader exec() as Hyunwoo explained: de_thread() calls exchange_tids() before release_task(leader), so the struct pid held by a SIGEV_THREAD_ID timer created against the leader's tid now points to the thread which called execve(). pid_task() returns that thread and lock_task_sighand() on it succeeds. If the timer signal is blocked, its sigqueue stays queued on the leader's task::pending. The next expiry of that timer can then run while release_task() flushes the queue. posixtimer_send_sigqueue() checks whether the sigqueue is already queued with a plain list_empty(), which only reads list_head::next. list_del_init() is not atomic and INIT_LIST_HEAD() stores list_head::next before list_head::prev, so the check can pass in between. list_add_tail() queues the entry on the task::pending of the live thread, and the list_head::prev store from the flush then overwrites the list_head::prev link that list_add_tail() has just set. __flush_itimer_signals() does not undo that either. With list_head::prev pointing at the entry itself, its list_del_init() only stores the same values again, so the entry is not removed from the list. It is still there after the last reference is dropped and the timer is freed by RCU, and the list_add_tail() of a later tgkill() follows that list_head::prev into the freed timer. This problem surfaced with the recent commit which moved the sigqueue flush out of the sighand lock held region. Hyonwoo proposed to fix this by using list_del_init_careful(), but that just papers over the problem. After some disucssions and various attempts to solve it, Eric pointed out that there is no reason to flush task::pending late in release_task() and it should be done in exit_signals() already. As nothing can collect and deliver signals which are queued in a dying task's pending queue, there is no reason to delay it further. But it has to be ensured that no signals can be queued into it after that point. exit_signals() sets PF_EXITING in task::flags, which can be used as an indicator for this. Cure it by: - Preventing signal queueing for task private signals (PIDTYPE_PID) when the task has PF_EXITING set in __send_signal_locked() and in posixtimer_send_sigqueue(). - Protecting the unlocked setting of PF_EXITING in exit_signals() for the task group empty and the group exit case with sighand lock - Flushing task::pending signals right there. Optimize that by moving the whole pending list to an on-stack list head under sighand lock and free the signals without the lock held. There has been quite some discussion about the lockless flush and the non-leader exec case on weakly ordered systems. The problem is that a third party which tries to send a posix timer signal relies on the PID lookup to find the target task and that lookup might result in the new leader when the signal was originaly directed to the old leader. In case that the signal was queued on the old leader then the lockless flush raised a concern over the following situation: old_leader new_leader third party A: flush_list() // list_del_in ---truncated---
The CVSS Base Score is a score from 0 to 10 that represents the intrinsic severity of a vulnerability. A higher score indicates greater severity.
The EPSS (Exploit Prediction Scoring System) is a score from 0 to 1 that indicates the probability that a vulnerability will be exploited in the real world in the next 30 days. A higher value indicates a greater likelihood of exploitation.
The Percentile indicates how much higher this vulnerability's EPSS score is compared to all other vulnerabilities in the EPSS database. For example, a percentile of 0.90 (90%) means that 90% of vulnerabilities have an EPSS score equal to or lower than the current one.
*Data updated as of: 2026-10-29
The CISA KEV Catalog lists vulnerabilities that have been actively exploited in the real world. If a CVE is present in this catalog, it indicates that the threat is immediate and mitigation should be a top priority.
CVE CVE-2026-98256 is not present in the CISA KEV Catalog. This indicates that it is not currently classified by CISA as an actively exploited vulnerability.