CVE-2026-98431
Vulnerability Scoring
Status: Received on 14 Oct 2026, 14:17 UTC
Published on: 14 Oct 2026, 14:17 UTC
CVSS Release:
CVE-2026-98431: In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: RDMA/uverbs: Fix mmap_lock/disassociation_lock circular dependency Commit 51976c6cd786 ("RDMA/core: Provide rdma_user_mmap_disassociate() to disassociate mmap pages") introduced disassociation_lock to protect new mmap registrations against uverbs_user_mmap_disassociate(), but created an ABBA deadlock: Thread A (mmap / fork): mmap_lock -> disassociation_lock Thread B (disassociate): disassociation_lock -> mmap_lock Fix by removing disassociation_lock entirely and using the pre-existing hw_destroy_rwsem instead. hw_destroy_rwsem already provides the same protection: rdma_umap_open() and ib_uverbs_mmap() both use down_read_trylock() before registering a new VMA, so holding hw_destroy_rwsem in uverbs_user_mmap_disassociate() is sufficient to block new registrations. trylock is used in both mmap paths (not blocking down_read) because mmap_lock is already held on entry, and uverbs_user_mmap_disassociate() acquires mmap_lock internally — a blocking read would recreate the same deadlock. The only caller that was not taking hw_destroy_rwsem for write was rdma_user_mmap_disassociate(). Fix it to take the rwsem per-ufile while iterating under lists_mutex. This is safe because ib_uverbs_close() releases hw_destroy_rwsem entirely before acquiring lists_mutex, so the two locks are never held simultaneously. lockdep warning: [ 776.654252] ====================================================== [ 776.655214] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected [ 776.656167] 6.18.0for-upstream_debug_94e244d9ccab #1 Not tainted [ 776.657114] ------------------------------------------------------ [ 776.658087] devlink/14824 is trying to acquire lock: [ 776.658879] ffff88811170c800 (&mm->mmap_lock){++++}-{4:4}, at: uverbs_user_mmap_disassociate+0x168/0x780 [ib_uverbs] [ 776.660479] [ 776.660479] but task is already holding lock: [ 776.661460] ffff888142d92b08 (&file->disassociation_lock){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: uverbs_user_mmap_disassociate+0x39/0x780 [ib_uverbs] [ 776.663177] [ 776.663177] which lock already depends on the new lock. [ 776.663177] [ 776.664525] [ 776.664525] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: [ 776.665724] [ 776.665724] -> #2 (&file->disassociation_lock){+.+.}-{4:4}: [ 776.666887] __mutex_lock+0x16d/0x2330 [ 776.667633] rdma_umap_open+0x129/0x280 [ib_uverbs] [ 776.668489] dup_mmap+0xa40/0x1790 [ 776.669170] copy_process+0x5dd2/0x6170 [ 776.669933] kernel_clone+0xb6/0x610 [ 776.670636] __do_sys_clone+0xb5/0xf0 [ 776.671354] do_syscall_64+0x70/0x12e0 [ 776.672083] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x4b/0x53 [ 776.672940] [ 776.672940] -> #1 (&mm->mmap_lock/1){+.+.}-{4:4}: [ 776.673985] down_write_nested+0x90/0x1e0 [ 776.674751] dup_mmap+0x201/0x1790 [ 776.675448] copy_process+0x5dd2/0x6170 [ 776.676180] kernel_clone+0xb6/0x610 [ 776.676904] __do_sys_clone+0xb5/0xf0 [ 776.677615] do_syscall_64+0x70/0x12e0 [ 776.678351] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x4b/0x53 [ 776.679239] [ 776.679239] -> #0 (&mm->mmap_lock){++++}-{4:4}: [ 776.680253] __lock_acquire+0x18c6/0x2ec0 [ 776.681018] lock_acquire+0x10e/0x2e0 [ 776.681742] down_read+0x95/0x430 [ 776.682395] uverbs_user_mmap_disassociate+0x168/0x780 [ib_uverbs] [ 776.683436] uverbs_destroy_ufile_hw+0x1ae/0x270 [ib_uverbs] [ 776.684416] ib_uverbs_remove_one+0x22b/0x420 [ib_uverbs] [ 776.685371] remove_client_context+0xa6/0xf0 [ib_core] [ 776.686342] disable_device+0x12b/0x240 [ib_core] [ 776.687249] __ib_unregister_device+0x269/0x460 [ib_core] [ 776.688233] ib_unregister_device+0x21/0x30 [ib_core] [ 776.689140] mlx5r_remove+0xd0/0x170 [mlx5_ib] [ 776.689999] device_release_driver_internal+0x3b2/0x5 ---truncated---
The exploitability of CVE-2026-98431 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-2026-98431.
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-2026-98431, 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-2026-98431, 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.