CVE-2026-23198 Vulnerability Analysis & Exploit Details

CVE-2026-23198
Vulnerability Scoring

Analysis In Progress
Analysis In Progress

Attack Complexity Details

  • Attack Complexity:
    Attack Complexity Analysis In Progress
  • Attack Vector:
    Attack Vector Under Analysis
  • Privileges Required: None
    No authentication is required for exploitation.
  • Scope:
    Impact is confined to the initially vulnerable component.
  • User Interaction: None
    No user interaction is necessary for exploitation.

CVE-2026-23198 Details

Status: Awaiting Analysis

Last updated: 🕠 18 Feb 2026, 17:52 UTC
Originally published on: 🕔 14 Feb 2026, 17:15 UTC

Time between publication and last update: 4 days

CVSS Release:

CVE-2026-23198 Vulnerability Summary

CVE-2026-23198: 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: <TASK> avic_update_iommu_vcpu_affinity+0x3d/0x90 [kvm_amd] __avic_vcpu_load+0xf4/0x130 [kvm_amd] kvm_arch_vcpu_load+0x89/0x210 [kvm] vcpu_load+0x30/0x40 [kvm] kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_run+0x45/0x620 [kvm] kvm_vcpu_ioctl+0x571/0x6a0 [kvm] __se_sys_ioctl+0x6d/0xb0 do_syscall_64+0x6f/0x9d0 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x4b/0x53 RIP: 0033:0x46893b </TASK> ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- If AVIC is inhibited when the irfd is deassigned, the bug will manifest as list corruption, e.g. on the next irqfd assignment. list_add corruption. next->prev should be prev (ffff8d474d5cd588), but was 0000000000000000. (next=ffff8d8658f86530). ------------[ cut here ]------------ kernel BUG at lib/list_debug.c:31! Oops: invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] SMP CPU: 128 UID: 0 PID: 80818 Comm: vfio_irq_test Tainted: G U W O 6.19.0-smp--f19dc4d680ba-irqfd #28 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:__list_add_valid_or_report+0x97/0xc0 Call Trace: <TASK> avic_pi_update_irte+0x28e/0x2b0 [kvm_amd] kvm_pi_update_irte+0xbf/0x190 [kvm] kvm_arch_irq_bypass_add_producer+0x72/0x90 [kvm] irq_bypass_register_consumer+0xcd/0x170 [irqbypa ---truncated---

Assessing the Risk of CVE-2026-23198

Access Complexity Graph

The exploitability of CVE-2026-23198 depends on two key factors: attack complexity (the level of effort required to execute an exploit) and privileges required (the access level an attacker needs).

Exploitability Analysis for CVE-2026-23198

No exploitability data is available for CVE-2026-23198.

Understanding AC and PR

A lower complexity and fewer privilege requirements make exploitation easier. Security teams should evaluate these aspects to determine the urgency of mitigation strategies, such as patch management and access control policies.

Attack Complexity (AC) measures the difficulty in executing an exploit. A high AC means that specific conditions must be met, making an attack more challenging, while a low AC means the vulnerability can be exploited with minimal effort.

Privileges Required (PR) determine the level of system access necessary for an attack. Vulnerabilities requiring no privileges are more accessible to attackers, whereas high privilege requirements limit exploitation to authorized users with elevated access.

CVSS Score Breakdown Chart

Above is the CVSS Sub-score Breakdown for CVE-2026-23198, illustrating how Base, Impact, and Exploitability factors combine to form the overall severity rating. A higher sub-score typically indicates a more severe or easier-to-exploit vulnerability.

CIA Impact Analysis

Below is the Impact Analysis for CVE-2026-23198, showing how Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability might be affected if the vulnerability is exploited. Higher values usually signal greater potential damage.

  • Confidentiality: None
    CVE-2026-23198 does not compromise confidentiality.
  • Integrity: None
    CVE-2026-23198 does not impact data integrity.
  • Availability: None
    CVE-2026-23198 does not affect system availability.

CVE-2026-23198 References

External References

CWE Common Weakness Enumeration

Unknown

Protect Your Infrastructure against CVE-2026-23198: Combat Critical CVE Threats

Stay updated with real-time CVE vulnerabilities and take action to secure your systems. Enhance your cybersecurity posture with the latest threat intelligence and mitigation techniques. Develop the skills necessary to defend against CVEs and secure critical infrastructures. Join the top cybersecurity professionals safeguarding today's infrastructures.

Other 5 Recently Published CVEs Vulnerabilities

  • CVE-2026-3288 – A security issue was discovered in ingress-nginx where the `nginx.ingress.kubernetes.io/rewrite-target` Ingress annotation can be used to inject co...
  • CVE-2026-31816 – Budibase is a low code platform for creating internal tools, workflows, and admin panels. In 3.31.4 and earlier, the Budibase server's authorized()...
  • CVE-2026-30240 – Budibase is a low code platform for creating internal tools, workflows, and admin panels. In 3.31.5 and earlier, a path traversal vulnerability in ...
  • CVE-2026-25960 – vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models (LLMs). The SSRF protection fix for CVE-2026-24779 add in 0.15.1 can be bypassed ...
  • CVE-2026-25737 – Budibase is a low code platform for creating internal tools, workflows, and admin panels. In 3.24.0 and earlier, an arbitrary file upload vulnerabi...