CVE-2026-89948

Published Sep 16, 2026

Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: batman-adv: bla: fix freeing of claims on meshif deletion When the mesh interface is getting deleted, then batadv_bla_del_backbone_claims() (via batadv_bla_purge_backbone_gw()) could make sure that all claims gets removed. But this function is only executed when bat_priv->bla.claim_hash is not NULL. And since batadv_bla_free() is always setting it to NULL before it is (indirectly) called, it was never actually executed. But the batadv_bla_purge_claims() -> batadv_handle_unclaim() is at the moment too fragile because the BLA code is not handling the rehashing in batadv_bla_update_orig_address(). The stored backbone address doesn't have to be the one actually used for the hash bucket selection during the initial adding of the backbone. The batadv_handle_unclaim() can therefore fail to find the respective backbone for the unclaim and then stop the deletion. But the actual backbone_gw object is not needed for the unclaim because all relevant information is always provided by the caller. And the check for the existence of the backbone_gw doesn't provide any additional security check for the deletion of a claim.

Is your site exposed to CVE-2026-89948?

Run a free security scan — no signup, results in seconds.

EPSS — Exploit Prediction

0.0021
Probability of exploitation
0.11%
Percentile rank

EPSS estimates the probability that this vulnerability will be exploited in the wild within the next 30 days. A higher score means more likely to be exploited.

References

Frequently Asked Questions

What is CVE-2026-89948? +
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: batman-adv: bla: fix freeing of claims on meshif deletion When the mesh interface is getting deleted, then batadv_bla_del_backbone_claims() (via batadv_bla_purge_backbone_gw()) could make sure that all claims gets removed. But this function is only executed when bat_priv->bla.claim_hash is not NULL. And since batadv_bla_free() is always setting it to NULL before it is (indirectly) called, it was never actually executed. But the batadv_bla_purge_claims() -> batadv_handle_unclaim() is at the moment too fragile because the BLA code is not handling the rehashing in batadv_bla_update_orig_address(). The stored backbone address doesn't have to be the one actually used for the hash bucket selection during the initial adding of the backbone. The batadv_handle_unclaim() can therefore fail to find the respective backbone for the unclaim and then stop the deletion. But the actual backbone_gw object is not needed for the unclaim because all relevant information is always provided by the caller. And the check for the existence of the backbone_gw doesn't provide any additional security check for the deletion of a claim.
How do I check if I'm vulnerable to CVE-2026-89948? +
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-2026-89948 — free, no signup required.

Patch and protect

Block known exploits with a web application firewall while you patch, keep your own devices clean, or test the fix on a fresh server.

Compare VPS prices →

Affiliate links: we may earn a commission, your price stays the same.