CVE-2026-45933

Published May 27, 2026 Modified May 27, 2026

Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: bpf: Preserve id of register in sync_linked_regs() sync_linked_regs() copies the id of known_reg to reg when propagating bounds of known_reg to reg using the off of known_reg, but when known_reg was linked to reg like: known_reg = reg ; both known_reg and reg get same id known_reg += 4 ; known_reg gets off = 4, and its id gets BPF_ADD_CONST now when a call to sync_linked_regs() happens, let's say with the following: if known_reg >= 10 goto pc+2 known_reg's new bounds are propagated to reg but now reg gets BPF_ADD_CONST from the copy. This means if another link to reg is created like: another_reg = reg ; another_reg should get the id of reg but assign_scalar_id_before_mov() sees BPF_ADD_CONST on reg and assigns a new id to it. As reg has a new id now, known_reg's link to reg is broken. If we find new bounds for known_reg, they will not be propagated to reg. This can be seen in the selftest added in the next commit: 0: (85) call bpf_get_prandom_u32#7 ; R0=scalar() 1: (57) r0 &= 255 ; R0=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=255,var_off=(0x0; 0xff)) 2: (bf) r1 = r0 ; R0=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=255,var_off=(0x0; 0xff)) R1=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=255,var_off=(0x0; 0xff)) 3: (07) r1 += 4 ; R1=scalar(id=1+4,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=4,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=259,var_off=(0x0; 0x1ff)) 4: (a5) if r1 < 0xa goto pc+4 ; R1=scalar(id=1+4,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=10,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=259,var_off=(0x0; 0x1ff)) 5: (bf) r2 = r0 ; R0=scalar(id=2,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=6,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=255) R2=scalar(id=2,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=6,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=255) 6: (a5) if r1 < 0xe goto pc+2 ; R1=scalar(id=1+4,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=14,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=259,var_off=(0x0; 0x1ff)) 7: (35) if r0 >= 0xa goto pc+1 ; R0=scalar(id=2,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=6,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=9,var_off=(0x0; 0xf)) 8: (37) r0 /= 0 div by zero When 4 is verified, r1's bounds are propagated to r0 but r0 also gets BPF_ADD_CONST (bug). When 5 is verified, r0 gets a new id (2) and its link with r1 is broken. After 6 we know r1 has bounds [14, 259] and therefore r0 should have bounds [10, 255], therefore the branch at 7 is always taken. But because r0's id was changed to 2, r1's new bounds are not propagated to r0. The verifier still thinks r0 has bounds [6, 255] before 7 and execution can reach div by zero. Fix this by preserving id in sync_linked_regs() like off and subreg_def.

References

Frequently Asked Questions

What is CVE-2026-45933? +
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: bpf: Preserve id of register in sync_linked_regs() sync_linked_regs() copies the id of known_reg to reg when propagating bounds of known_reg to reg using the off of known_reg, but when known_reg was linked to reg like: known_reg = reg ; both known_reg and reg get same id known_reg += 4 ; known_reg gets off = 4, and its id gets BPF_ADD_CONST now when a call to sync_linked_regs() happens, let's say with the following: if known_reg >= 10 goto pc+2 known_reg's new bounds are propagated to reg but now reg gets BPF_ADD_CONST from the copy. This means if another link to reg is created like: another_reg = reg ; another_reg should get the id of reg but assign_scalar_id_before_mov() sees BPF_ADD_CONST on reg and assigns a new id to it. As reg has a new id now, known_reg's link to reg is broken. If we find new bounds for known_reg, they will not be propagated to reg. This can be seen in the selftest added in the next commit: 0: (85) call bpf_get_prandom_u32#7 ; R0=scalar() 1: (57) r0 &= 255 ; R0=scalar(smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=255,var_off=(0x0; 0xff)) 2: (bf) r1 = r0 ; R0=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=255,var_off=(0x0; 0xff)) R1=scalar(id=1,smin=smin32=0,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=255,var_off=(0x0; 0xff)) 3: (07) r1 += 4 ; R1=scalar(id=1+4,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=4,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=259,var_off=(0x0; 0x1ff)) 4: (a5) if r1 < 0xa goto pc+4 ; R1=scalar(id=1+4,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=10,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=259,var_off=(0x0; 0x1ff)) 5: (bf) r2 = r0 ; R0=scalar(id=2,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=6,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=255) R2=scalar(id=2,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=6,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=255) 6: (a5) if r1 < 0xe goto pc+2 ; R1=scalar(id=1+4,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=14,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=259,var_off=(0x0; 0x1ff)) 7: (35) if r0 >= 0xa goto pc+1 ; R0=scalar(id=2,smin=umin=smin32=umin32=6,smax=umax=smax32=umax32=9,var_off=(0x0; 0xf)) 8: (37) r0 /= 0 div by zero When 4 is verified, r1's bounds are propagated to r0 but r0 also gets BPF_ADD_CONST (bug). When 5 is verified, r0 gets a new id (2) and its link with r1 is broken. After 6 we know r1 has bounds [14, 259] and therefore r0 should have bounds [10, 255], therefore the branch at 7 is always taken. But because r0's id was changed to 2, r1's new bounds are not propagated to r0. The verifier still thinks r0 has bounds [6, 255] before 7 and execution can reach div by zero. Fix this by preserving id in sync_linked_regs() like off and subreg_def.
How do I check if I'm vulnerable to CVE-2026-45933? +
You can use Secably's free Website Scanner to check your website for known vulnerabilities. For infrastructure scanning, use the Port Scanner to identify exposed services that may be affected. Check the vendor advisories linked above for specific patch and version information.

Don't wait for an exploit

Scan your website for vulnerabilities like CVE-2026-45933 — free, no signup required.

Start Free Scan