CVE-2026-23209
Vulnerability Scoring
Status: Received on 14 Feb 2026, 17:15 UTC
Published on: 14 Feb 2026, 17:15 UTC
CVSS Release:
CVE-2026-23209: In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: macvlan: fix error recovery in macvlan_common_newlink() valis provided a nice repro to crash the kernel: ip link add p1 type veth peer p2 ip link set address 00:00:00:00:00:20 dev p1 ip link set up dev p1 ip link set up dev p2 ip link add mv0 link p2 type macvlan mode source ip link add invalid% link p2 type macvlan mode source macaddr add 00:00:00:00:00:20 ping -c1 -I p1 1.2.3.4 He also gave a very detailed analysis: <quote valis> The issue is triggered when a new macvlan link is created with MACVLAN_MODE_SOURCE mode and MACVLAN_MACADDR_ADD (or MACVLAN_MACADDR_SET) parameter, lower device already has a macvlan port and register_netdevice() called from macvlan_common_newlink() fails (e.g. because of the invalid link name). In this case macvlan_hash_add_source is called from macvlan_change_sources() / macvlan_common_newlink(): This adds a reference to vlan to the port's vlan_source_hash using macvlan_source_entry. vlan is a pointer to the priv data of the link that is being created. When register_netdevice() fails, the error is returned from macvlan_newlink() to rtnl_newlink_create(): if (ops->newlink) err = ops->newlink(dev, ¶ms, extack); else err = register_netdevice(dev); if (err < 0) { free_netdev(dev); goto out; } and free_netdev() is called, causing a kvfree() on the struct net_device that is still referenced in the source entry attached to the lower device's macvlan port. Now all packets sent on the macvlan port with a matching source mac address will trigger a use-after-free in macvlan_forward_source(). </quote valis> With all that, my fix is to make sure we call macvlan_flush_sources() regardless of @create value whenever "goto destroy_macvlan_port;" path is taken. Many thanks to valis for following up on this issue.
The exploitability of CVE-2026-23209 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).
No exploitability data is available for CVE-2026-23209.
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.
Above is the CVSS Sub-score Breakdown for CVE-2026-23209, 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.
Below is the Impact Analysis for CVE-2026-23209, showing how Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability might be affected if the vulnerability is exploited. Higher values usually signal greater potential damage.
Unknown
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.