CVE-2026-97958

What it is

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net/sched: cls_api: Don't replay RTM_GETCHAIN in tc_ctl_chain(). If a netlink socket sends RTM_GETCHAIN requests repeatedly without recv()ing the responses, tc_ctl_chain() hogs CPU and triggers Hung Task splat. [0] As caught in the stack trace, netlink_attachskb() could confuse tc_ctl_chain() by returning -EAGAIN when the userspace netlink socket's receive buffer is full. The replay: label exists since commit 32a4f5ecd738 ("net: sched: introduce chain object to uapi") but was not used initially. Since commit 9f407f1768d3 ("net: sched: introduce chain templates"), the label is needed for RTM_NEWCHAIN because tcf_proto_lookup_ops() may release RTNL to call request_module(). However, the replay logic is unnecessary for RTM_GETCHAIN. Let's apply the replay logic only for RTM_NEWCHAIN. [0]: INFO: task repro:1018 is blocked on a mutex likely owned by task repro:1022. task:repro state:R running task stack:14096 pid:1022 tgid:1014 ppid:961 task_flags:0x400040 flags:0x00080000 Call Trace: <TASK> ? clockevents_program_event (kernel/time/clockevents.c:372) ? pskb_expand_head (net/core/skbuff.c:615) ? skb_release_data (net/core/skbuff.c:1122) ? netlink_attachskb (./include/linux/skbuff.h:1323 ./include/linux/skbuff.h:1332 net/netlink/af_netlink.c:1232) ? __netlink_lookup (./include/linux/rcupdate.h:882 ./include/linux/rhashtable.h:711 net/netlink/af_netlink.c:499) ? tc_chain_notify (net/sched/cls_api.c:3045) ? tc_chain_notify (./include/linux/skbuff.h:1384 net/sched/cls_api.c:3041) ? netlink_unicast (net/netlink/af_netlink.c:1335) ? rtnl_unicast (./include/net/netlink.h:1198 net/core/rtnetlink.c:985) ? tc_ctl_chain (net/sched/cls_api.c:3242) ? rtnetlink_rcv_msg (net/core/rtnetlink.c:7146) ? netlink_unicast (net/netlink/af_netlink.c:1354) ? __pfx_rtnetlink_rcv_msg (net/core/rtnetlink.c:7177) ? netlink_rcv_skb (net/netlink/af_netlink.c:2556) ? netlink_unicast (net/netlink/af_netlink.c:1319) ? netlink_sendmsg (net/netlink/af_netlink.c:1900) ? __sock_sendmsg (net/socket.c:800) ? __sys_sendto (net/socket.c:2281) ? __x64_sys_sendto (net/socket.c:2288 net/socket.c:2284 net/socket.c:2284) ? do_syscall_64 (arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:61 arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:84) ? entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe (arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:121) </TASK>

At a glance

Exploit odds

0.2% chance of exploitation in the next 30 days (EPSS).

Fix

No patch or advisory is linked yet. Look at mitigations or restrict exposure.

Timeline

1. 2026-09-25 11:17 UTC PublishedDisclosed publicly on CVE.org and NVD
2. 2026-10-19 10:17 UTC Last updatedMost recent change to the record

Why it ranks here

• Exploited in the wild: no, CISA does not list it.
• Exploit odds: 0.2% in the next 30 days (EPSS).
• Severity: not scored yet.
• Fix: none linked yet, which raises it.

Details

Published

2026-09-25 11:17 UTC

Last modified

2026-10-19 10:17 UTC

Exploit probability

0.2% · EPSS, next 30 days

Record status

Received

Is it in your code?

Hand this to your coding agent. It searches your project for the affected products and checks versions. Nothing leaves your machine.

Read https://cve-list.com/agent/cve/CVE-2026-97958.md and follow it. Check whether this project is affected by CVE-2026-97958. Read only. Don't change anything and don't upload my code. Tell me yes, no or not sure, with the file as proof.

Copy as ticket · More options · Status badge