CVE-2026-93048

Published Sep 17, 2026

Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mtd: part: reject MTDPART_OFS_RETAIN in mtd_add_partition() mtd_add_partition() does not reject the special offset value MTDPART_OFS_RETAIN (-3), which leads to a WARN_ON in add_mtd_device() when called through the BLKPG ioctl on NAND devices. The RETAIN value depends on cur_offset being the end of the previous partition, but in the dynamic partition path cur_offset equals the offset argument itself, causing undefined behavior. Commit 5daa7b21496a ("mtd: prepare partition add and del functions for ioctl requests") introduced mtd_add_partition() and correctly rejected MTDPART_OFS_APPEND (-1) and MTDPART_OFS_NXTBLK (-2), since those special offsets rely on cur_offset tracking the previous partition's end. However, commit 1a31368bf92e ("mtd: add a flags for partitions which should just leave smth. after them") later added MTDPART_OFS_RETAIN (-3) for the static partition table path without updating mtd_add_partition() to also reject this value. With offset=-3 passed via BLKPG, the RETAIN size calculation in allocate_partition() underflows (parent_size - 0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFD = parent_size + 3). If the underflow result does not appear to leave enough space, allocate_partition() jumps to out_register via goto, skipping erasesize initialization. This results in erasesize=0, which triggers: WARN_ON((!mtd->erasesize || !master->_erase) && !(mtd->flags & MTD_NO_ERASE)) in add_mtd_device(). If the underflow result appears to leave enough space, a bogus partition size is calculated, but the "out of reach" sanity check catches the invalid offset and creates a disabled empty partition (offset=0, size=0) instead of returning an error. Fix this by adding MTDPART_OFS_RETAIN to the rejection list in mtd_add_partition(), consistent with the existing handling of APPEND and NXTBLK.

Is your site exposed to CVE-2026-93048?

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-2026-93048? +
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mtd: part: reject MTDPART_OFS_RETAIN in mtd_add_partition() mtd_add_partition() does not reject the special offset value MTDPART_OFS_RETAIN (-3), which leads to a WARN_ON in add_mtd_device() when called through the BLKPG ioctl on NAND devices. The RETAIN value depends on cur_offset being the end of the previous partition, but in the dynamic partition path cur_offset equals the offset argument itself, causing undefined behavior. Commit 5daa7b21496a ("mtd: prepare partition add and del functions for ioctl requests") introduced mtd_add_partition() and correctly rejected MTDPART_OFS_APPEND (-1) and MTDPART_OFS_NXTBLK (-2), since those special offsets rely on cur_offset tracking the previous partition's end. However, commit 1a31368bf92e ("mtd: add a flags for partitions which should just leave smth. after them") later added MTDPART_OFS_RETAIN (-3) for the static partition table path without updating mtd_add_partition() to also reject this value. With offset=-3 passed via BLKPG, the RETAIN size calculation in allocate_partition() underflows (parent_size - 0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFD = parent_size + 3). If the underflow result does not appear to leave enough space, allocate_partition() jumps to out_register via goto, skipping erasesize initialization. This results in erasesize=0, which triggers: WARN_ON((!mtd->erasesize || !master->_erase) && !(mtd->flags & MTD_NO_ERASE)) in add_mtd_device(). If the underflow result appears to leave enough space, a bogus partition size is calculated, but the "out of reach" sanity check catches the invalid offset and creates a disabled empty partition (offset=0, size=0) instead of returning an error. Fix this by adding MTDPART_OFS_RETAIN to the rejection list in mtd_add_partition(), consistent with the existing handling of APPEND and NXTBLK.
How do I check if I'm vulnerable to CVE-2026-93048? +
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-2026-93048 — 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.