CVE-2026-72016 Vulnerability Analysis & Exploit Details

CVE-2026-72016
Vulnerability Scoring

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-2026-72016 Details

Status: Received on 15 Aug 2026, 06:21 UTC

Last updated: 🕕 17 Aug 2026, 06:17 UTC
Originally published on: 🕕 15 Aug 2026, 06:21 UTC

Time between publication and last update: 1 days

CVSS Release:

CVE-2026-72016 Vulnerability Summary

CVE-2026-72016: In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: cpu/hotplug: Fix NULL kobject warning in cpuhp_smt_enable() On arm64, when booting with `maxcpus` greater than the number of present CPUs (e.g., QEMU -smp cpus=4,maxcpus=8), some CPUs are marked as 'present' but have not yet been registered via register_cpu(). Consequently, the per-cpu device objects for these CPUs are not yet initialized. In cpuhp_smt_enable(), the code iterates over all present CPUs. Calling _cpu_up() for these unregistered CPUs eventually leads to sysfs_create_group() being called with a NULL kobject (or a kobject without a directory), triggering the following warning in fs/sysfs/group.c: WARNING: fs/sysfs/group.c:137 at internal_create_group+0x41c/0x4bc, CPU#2: sh/181 [...] Call trace: internal_create_group+0x41c/0x4bc (P) sysfs_create_group+0x18/0x24 topology_add_dev+0x1c/0x28 cpuhp_invoke_callback+0x104/0x20c __cpuhp_invoke_callback_range+0x94/0x11c _cpu_up+0x200/0x37c When booting with ACPI, arm64 smp_prepare_cpus() currently sets all enumerated CPUs as "present" regardless of their status in the MADT. This causes issues with SMT hotplug control. For instance, with QEMU's "-smp 4,maxcpus=8" configuration, the MADT GICC entries are populated as follows: 1. The first four CPUs: `Enabled` set but `Online Capable` not set. 2. The remaining four CPUs: `Online Capable` set but `Enabled` not set to support potential hot-plugging. Fix this by: 1. When booting with ACPI, checking the ACPI_MADT_ENABLED flag in the GICC entry before calling set_cpu_present() during SMP initialization. 2. Properly managing the present mask in acpi_map_cpu() and acpi_unmap_cpu() to support actual CPU hotplug events, This aligns with other architectures like x86 and LoongArch. 3. Update the arm64 CPU hotplug documentation to no longer state that all online-capable vCPUs are marked as present by the kernel at boot time. This ensures that only physically available or explicitly enabled CPUs are in the present mask, keeping the SMT control logic consistent with the actual hardware state.

Assessing the Risk of CVE-2026-72016

Access Complexity Graph

The exploitability of CVE-2026-72016 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-2026-72016

No exploitability data is available for CVE-2026-72016.

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-2026-72016, 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-2026-72016, showing how Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability might be affected if the vulnerability is exploited. Higher values usually signal greater potential damage.

Confidentiality: None
CVE-2026-72016 does not compromise confidentiality.
Integrity: None
CVE-2026-72016 does not impact data integrity.
Availability: None
CVE-2026-72016 does not affect system availability.

CVE-2026-72016 References

External References

CWE Common Weakness Enumeration

Unknown

Protect Your Infrastructure against CVE-2026-72016: 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-2026-90474 – MCPHub before 1.0.32 contains an authentication bypass vulnerability in its embedded OAuth 2.0 authorization server where client authentication is ...
CVE-2026-90473 – msgpack-java through 0.9.12 contains an integer overflow vulnerability in MessageUnpacker.skipValue() when processing MAP32 containers with large e...
CVE-2026-90472 – msgpack-java through 0.9.12 contains a stack overflow vulnerability in MessageUnpacker.unpackValue() that recursively deserializes arrays and maps ...
CVE-2026-89172 – Improper protection of physical side channels vulnerability in Microchip AN1044, Microchip AN953, and Microchip SW300052. This issue affects AN104...
CVE-2026-85200 – The GEO my WP plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Local File Inclusion in all versions up to, and including, 4.5.5.3 via the gmw_posts_locator_aj...