CVE-2026-98256

HIGHPre-NVD 7.87.8
EchelonGraph scoreHIGH confidence

“—” beside the score: it is equal to the CVSS score beside it.

Score 7.8 from GitHub Security Advisory (severity: HIGH) published 2026-10-06. A secondary CVSS source baseline 7.8; sources differ by 0.0.

Triggered by: GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
Sources: EPSS, GitHub Security Advisory, a secondary CVSS source
Trending — 3 sources updated this week
7.8EG
EchelonGraph verdictPlan a fixRemediate within your standard update timelines (the SSVC decision on this page).
  • High severity, but no confirmed exploitation yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0.1%CVSS: 7.8Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed

A fix is available — apply it.

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---

CVSS v3
7.8
EG Score
7.8HIGHhigh confidence
EG Risk
35
EG Risk 35/100

EG Risk is EchelonGraph's 0–100 priority score: it fuses intrinsic severity with real-world exploitation and automatability so you can rank equal-severity CVEs and fix the most dangerous first. Higher = act sooner. Distinct from the 0–10 EG Score (severity).

How it’s computed (value × EchelonGraph’s weight)
Severity78% × 45%
The EG Score, 7.8 of 10.
Exploitation0.1% × 40%
FIRST EPSS: the 30-day exploitation probability when EchelonGraph scored this CVE.
Automatability0% × 15%
CISA's BOD 26-04 default: no one has published Automatable for this CVE, and CISA treats it as “no” for a CVE not in KEV.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph): Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from Vulnrichment. EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE.
Action: A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
EPSS PROB
0.1%
EPSS %ILE
2nd
KEV
Not listed

SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).

A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.

Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from Vulnrichment. EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table

BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.

In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). Where an input reads “CISA's BOD 26-04 default”, no one has published it for this CVE, and CISA's implementation guidance says: “If “Automatable” and “Technical Impact” information items about a CVE ID are not available and the CVE ID is not in the KEV Catalog, CISA will treat its values as “no” and “total,” respectively, until CISA or a third party provides metadata about the CVE ID. CISA will always provide the Vulnrichment data for a CVE ID listed in the KEV Catalog.” Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it

Published

October 6, 2026

Last Modified

October 7, 2026

Advisory Details (3)

Auto-updated Oct 7, 2026
Patch available.
Web page

signal: Prevent exec() race - kernel/git/stable/linux.git - Linux kernel stable tree

https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/d2710c8d938ae6a825a6463158e6e6f31eac792a
Web page

signal: Prevent exec() race - kernel/git/stable/linux.git - Linux kernel stable tree

https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/934bd95f1a6404dbb845951b823547abab05a649
Web page

signal: Prevent exec() race - kernel/git/stable/linux.git - Linux kernel stable tree

https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/621c365739828900f32a0c1cdfe5387528a62176

Vendor Advisories for CVE-2026-98256(1)

These vendors published their own advisory mentioning this CVE — often with vendor-specific remediation steps + affected product lists not in NVD.

Affected Packages

(1 across 1 ecosystem)
Debian:14(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
linux6.12.100-1 ... 7.2~rc7-1~exp1 (181 versions)
  • every version up to 7.2.8-1: fixed in 7.2.8-1
—

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 29× in last 7d / 40× in last 30d)

Each row is a time one of our pipelines fetched, updated or re-scored this CVE. For example, "NVD update" means NVD published or revised its analysis for this CVE; "MITRE cvelistV5" means we ingested or refreshed it from the CNA feed. An arrow marks a change the record states ("CVSS v3 → 9.1"); EPSS and GHSA rows show the values recorded at that time, not what changed (EPSS values are rounded; hover one for the exact figures). Most recent first.

  1. 2026-10-13 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 2nd percentile
  2. 2026-10-13 03:58 UTCEG score recompute
  3. 2026-10-13 03:57 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-jj25-6g4q-4cf8 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.8
  4. 2026-10-12 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 2nd percentile
  5. 2026-10-12 14:38 UTCEG score recompute
  6. 2026-10-11 22:22 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-jj25-6g4q-4cf8 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.8
  7. 2026-10-11 19:10 UTCEG score recompute
  8. 2026-10-11 16:25 UTCEG score recompute
  9. 2026-10-11 13:50 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 2nd percentile
  10. 2026-10-11 13:37 UTCEG score recompute
  11. 2026-10-11 11:20 UTCEG score recompute
  12. 2026-10-11 11:20 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-jj25-6g4q-4cf8 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.8
  13. 2026-10-11 00:15 UTCEG score recompute
  14. 2026-10-11 00:14 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-jj25-6g4q-4cf8 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.8
  15. 2026-10-10 20:00 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 2nd percentile
  16. 2026-10-10 13:09 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-jj25-6g4q-4cf8 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.8
  17. 2026-10-10 02:06 UTCEG score recompute
  18. 2026-10-10 02:06 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-jj25-6g4q-4cf8 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.8
  19. 2026-10-09 20:08 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 2nd percentile
  20. 2026-10-09 15:04 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-jj25-6g4q-4cf8 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.8
  21. 2026-10-09 03:47 UTCEG score recompute
  22. 2026-10-09 03:47 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-jj25-6g4q-4cf8 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.8
  23. 2026-10-08 17:14 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 2nd percentile
  24. 2026-10-08 16:45 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-jj25-6g4q-4cf8 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.8
  25. 2026-10-08 05:33 UTCEG score recompute
Show 15 more
  1. 2026-10-08 05:33 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-jj25-6g4q-4cf8 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.8
  2. 2026-10-07 23:48 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.1% · 2nd percentile
  3. 2026-10-07 18:31 UTCEG score recompute
  4. 2026-10-07 18:31 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-jj25-6g4q-4cf8 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.8
  5. 2026-10-07 07:29 UTCEG score recompute
  6. 2026-10-07 07:29 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-jj25-6g4q-4cf8
  7. 2026-10-07 06:57 UTCEG score recomputeFirst assessed: 7.8 HIGH
  8. 2026-10-07 06:57 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-jj25-6g4q-4cf8
  9. 2026-10-07 06:56 UTCMITRE cvelistV5CVSS v3 → 7.8 · severity → HIGH
  10. 2026-10-06 15:19 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 6th percentile
  11. 2026-10-06 09:46 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-jj25-6g4q-4cf8
  12. 2026-10-06 09:44 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-jj25-6g4q-4cf8
  13. 2026-10-06 09:28 UTCNVD update
  14. 2026-10-06 08:55 UTCEG score recompute
  15. 2026-10-06 08:52 UTCMITRE cvelistV5first tracked

Frequently asked(5)

What is CVE-2026-98256?
CVE-2026-98256 is a high-severity vulnerability; its CVE record was published on October 6, 2026. 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 sendsignallocked+0xb27/0xba0 Write of size 8 at addr ffff888007ed80c8 by task poc/79 ... Call Trace:…
When was the CVE record for CVE-2026-98256 published?
The CVE record for CVE-2026-98256 was published on October 6, 2026. That is the record's publication date; the vulnerability itself may have been made public earlier. EchelonGraph's copy of the record carries a last-modified date of October 7, 2026; the record at its source may have been updated since.
Is CVE-2026-98256 actively exploited?
CVE-2026-98256 is not currently on CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. FIRST EPSS estimates a 0.1% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days (2nd percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs).
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2026-98256?
CVE-2026-98256 has a CVSS base score of 7.8 (a secondary CVSS source that NVD displays; NVD's own analysis pending).
How do I remediate CVE-2026-98256?
A fix for CVE-2026-98256 is available: update to the fixed version the vendor names in its advisory. The vendor advisories EchelonGraph has for CVE-2026-98256 are linked in the Vendor Advisories panel on this page.

Dependency Blast Radius

See which npm, PyPI, Go, and Maven packages are affected by CVE-2026-98256

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-98256?

EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.