CVE-2026-52946

CVE-2026-52946 is a high-severity vulnerability with a CVSS 3.x base score of 7.5. It is not currently listed as actively exploited by CISA, and its EPSS exploit-prediction score is low.

Key facts

Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: fs/fcntl: fix SOFTIRQ-unsafe lock order in fasync signaling A SOFTIRQ-safe to SOFTIRQ-unsafe lock order deadlock can occur in send_sigio() and send_sigurg() when a process group receives a signal. When FASYNC is configured for a process group (PIDTYPE_PGID), both functions use read_lock(&tasklist_lock) to traverse the task list. However, they are frequently called from softirq context: - send_sigio() via input_inject_event -> kill_fasync - send_sigurg() via tcp_check_urg -> sk_send_sigurg (NET_RX_SOFTIRQ) The deadlock is caused by the rwlock writer fairness mechanism: 1. CPU 0 (process context) holds read_lock(&tasklist_lock) in do_wait(). 2. CPU 1 (process context) attempts write_lock(&tasklist_lock) in fork() or exit() and spins, which blocks all new readers. 3. CPU 0 is interrupted by a softirq (e.g., TCP URG packet reception). 4. The softirq calls send_sigurg() and attempts to acquire read_lock(&tasklist_lock), deadlocking because CPU 1 is waiting. Since PID hashing and do_each_pid_task() traversals are already RCU-protected, the read_lock on tasklist_lock is no longer strictly required for safe traversal. Fix this by replacing tasklist_lock with rcu_read_lock(), aligning the process group signaling path with the single-PID path. This also mitigates a potential remote denial of service vector via TCP URG packets. Lockdep splat: ===================================================== WARNING: SOFTIRQ-safe -> SOFTIRQ-unsafe lock order detected [...] Chain exists of: &dev->event_lock --> &f_owner->lock --> tasklist_lock Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 CPU1 ---- ---- lock(tasklist_lock); local_irq_disable(); lock(&dev->event_lock); lock(&f_owner->lock); <Interrupt> lock(&dev->event_lock); *** DEADLOCK ***

Frequently asked questions

What is CVE-2026-52946?
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: fs/fcntl: fix SOFTIRQ-unsafe lock order in fasync signaling A SOFTIRQ-safe to SOFTIRQ-unsafe lock order deadlock can occur in send_sigio() and send_sigurg() when a process group receives a signal. When FASYNC is configured for a process group (PIDTYPE_PGID), both functions use read_lock(&tasklist_lock) to traverse the task list. However, they are frequently called from softirq context: - send_sigio() via input_inject_event -> kill_fasync - send_sigurg() via tcp_check_urg -> sk_send_sigurg (NET_RX_SOFTIRQ) The deadlock is caused by the rwlock writer fairness mechanism: 1. CPU 0 (process context) holds read_lock(&tasklist_lock) in do_wait(). 2. CPU 1 (process context) attempts write_lock(&tasklist_lock) in fork() or exit() and spins, which blocks all new readers. 3. CPU 0 is interrupted by a softirq (e.g., TCP URG packet reception). 4. The softirq calls send_sigurg() and attempts to acquire read_lock(&tasklist_lock), deadlocking because CPU 1 is waiting. Since PID hashing and do_each_pid_task() traversals are already RCU-protected, the read_lock on tasklist_lock is no longer strictly required for safe traversal. Fix this by replacing tasklist_lock with rcu_read_lock(), aligning the process group signaling path with the single-PID path. This also mitigates a potential remote denial of service vector via TCP URG packets. Lockdep splat: ===================================================== WARNING: SOFTIRQ-safe -> SOFTIRQ-unsafe lock order detected [...] Chain exists of: &dev->event_lock --> &f_owner->lock --> tasklist_lock Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 CPU1 ---- ---- lock(tasklist_lock); local_irq_disable(); lock(&dev->event_lock); lock(&f_owner->lock); <Interrupt> lock(&dev->event_lock); *** DEADLOCK ***
How severe is CVE-2026-52946?
CVE-2026-52946 has a CVSS 3.x base score of 7.5, rated high severity. It is exploitable over network with low attack complexity, requires no privileges and no user interaction. Impact on confidentiality is none, integrity none, and availability high.
Is CVE-2026-52946 being actively exploited?
It is not currently listed in CISA's KEV catalog. Its EPSS exploit-prediction score is 1% (45th percentile), an estimate of the probability of exploitation in the next 30 days.
How do I fix CVE-2026-52946?
Review the linked vendor and NVD advisories for patched versions and mitigations, then upgrade or apply the recommended workaround. Given its high severity, prioritise patching exposed systems.
Does CVE-2026-52946 have an EU (EUVD) identifier?
Yes. CVE-2026-52946 is tracked in the ENISA EU Vulnerability Database (EUVD) as EUVD-2026-38814.
When was CVE-2026-52946 published?
CVE-2026-52946 was published on 2026-06-24 and last updated on 2026-06-29.

References