AEGLIX vulnerability intelligence

CVE-2026-98644

UNSCORED · Received

Published: 2026-10-18 · Updated: 2026-10-19 · Source: NVD

Stored catalog record

Source record retrieved 2026-10-28T10:23:24.349157+00:00. Scheduled imports handle updates; this page does not assert that the provider was queried just now.

Vulnerability overview

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: bpf: Avoid soft lockup in __htab_map_lookup_and_delete_batch() __htab_map_lookup_and_delete_batch() has no rescheduling point. The batch count bounds how many entries are copied out, not how many buckets are visited, so one BPF_MAP_LOOKUP_BATCH call can walk the map end to end. The empty-bucket fast path is worse: it stays inside a single rcu_read_lock() / bpf_disable_instrumentation() section for any run of consecutive empty buckets. That holds up on small maps, but it falls apart at scale. On a 144-CPU arm64 host running a CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE kernel, periodic BPF_MAP_LOOKUP_BATCH calls against an LRU hash map with 16,777,216 buckets held a CPU inside the batch op for 77+ seconds and triggered the soft lockup watchdog. Commit 75134f16e7dd ("bpf: Add schedule points in batch ops") fixed this same problem in the generic batch ops, but not in this htab-native path, which every htab-based hash map variant uses for its lookup[_and_delete] batch ops. Complete that fix here. Leave the critical section after 64 consecutive empty buckets, call cond_resched_tasks_rcu_qs(), and resume at the saved bucket cursor. No locks are held at that point, and resuming from the cursor is already the function's behavior for non-empty buckets. Add the same call to the per-bucket loop after copy_to_user(), where every lock has been dropped. cond_resched_rcu() is not enough here: sleeping with bpf_prog_active elevated makes tracing programs on that CPU silently skip their invocations. Plain cond_resched() is not enough either. It is a no-op under PREEMPT and PREEMPT_LAZY, the only models arm64 and x86 have offered since commit 7dadeaa6e851 ("sched: Further restrict the preemption modes"). It is also never a Tasks RCU quiescent state, in any model: the reschedule counts as a preemption. The walking task stays a holdout and stalls every synchronize_rcu_tasks() caller, ftrace and BPF trampoline teardown included, until the syscall returns [1]. cond_resched_tasks_rcu_qs() is the usual tool for that [2]. It reports the quiescent state at each yield and still reschedules as cond_resched() does on PREEMPT_NONE and PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY kernels.

Patch review priority

Assess exposure and vendor guidance

No higher-priority signal is available in the current stored evidence.

FIRST EPSS: 0.21% · percentile 10.5 · score date 2026-10-27.

EPSS estimates probability of exploitation in the next 30 days. It does not measure your exposure or prove exploitation. The elevated threshold is 10%; CISA KEV takes precedence. About FIRST EPSS ↗

Severity and scoring

CVSS score: Not scored · UNSCORED
CVSS version: Not supplied
CVSS vector: Not supplied
Weaknesses: Not supplied

CVSS measures technical severity; it does not establish whether this vulnerability is being exploited in your environment.

Known exploitation and remediation

Not listed in the CISA catalog retrieved for this record. This does not establish that exploitation has not occurred.

Verify affected versions and patch availability in the vendor advisory before making changes.

Affected products and versions

NVD has not supplied affected-version configurations for this record. Check the vendor references below.

Advisories and references

Explore official sources

Read the official NVD record ↗

Explore the CISA catalog ↗

Back to CVE intelligence