Answer in brief
CVE-2026-74305 records a Unknown severity vulnerability in bpf: Tighten cgroup storage cookie checks for prog arrays. The current sources do not mark it as known exploited. The current feed maps Linux/Linux (generic), Linux/Linux (generic). Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.
Analysis pending evidence review
HOL Guard separates source facts from reviewed analysis. See the methodology.
Answer in brief
CVE-2026-74305 records a Unknown severity vulnerability in bpf: Tighten cgroup storage cookie checks for prog arrays. The current sources do not mark it as known exploited. The current feed maps Linux/Linux (generic), Linux/Linux (generic). Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.
Analysis pending evidence review
HOL Guard separates source facts from reviewed analysis. See the methodology.
A CVSS score is not reported in the current record. The current sources do not mark it as known exploited. Treat this as a source-backed prioritization signal, not a statement about your environment.
Analysis status
Analysis pending evidence review
Factual feed record only; HOL analysis is not approved for indexing. Read the methodology.
The current feed maps Linux/Linux (generic), Linux/Linux (generic). Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.
| Package | Affected range | Fixed version |
|---|---|---|
| Linux/Linuxgeneric | >=c1c74584b9b4043c52e41fec415226e582d266a3 <87177497cca90bf4fcfb759eb898560eb5b46a10 || >=66da7cee78590259b400e51a70622ccd41da7bb2 <1c762d28698483ce7c372091f34d86e4d4828652 || >=7acfa07c585e3d7a64654d38f0a5c762877d0b9b <eb73056ce2a6f101ddd3bdba89af6b24ebffff85 || >=41688d1fc5d163a6c2c0e95c0419e2cb31a44648 <9ca06849c4239aa2d580c54651f8588c51cb398b || >=abad3d0bad72a52137e0c350c59542d75ae4f513 <46fbafe3d2d569d828e8d24a7dbe1659f63685cf || >=abad3d0bad72a52137e0c350c59542d75ae4f513 <cb22dc79528eb26a46d346c3118dbd6b14c70609 || >=abad3d0bad72a52137e0c350c59542d75ae4f513 <10627ddc0167aab5c1c390a10ef461e9937aba08 || 19341d5c59e8c7e8528e40f8663e99d67810473c || >=5.15.192 <5.15.212 || >=6.1.151 <6.1.178 || >=6.6.105 <6.6.145 || >=6.12.46 <6.12.97 || >=6.16.1 <6.17 | 87177497cca90bf4fcfb759eb898560eb5b46a10, 1c762d28698483ce7c372091f34d86e4d4828652, eb73056ce2a6f101ddd3bdba89af6b24ebffff85, 9ca06849c4239aa2d580c54651f8588c51cb398b, 46fbafe3d2d569d828e8d24a7dbe1659f63685cf, cb22dc79528eb26a46d346c3118dbd6b14c70609, 10627ddc0167aab5c1c390a10ef461e9937aba08, 5.15.212, 6.1.178, 6.6.145, 6.12.97, 6.17 |
| Linux/Linuxgeneric | 6.17 | Not reported |
Published upstream
Aug 15, 2026
Evidence: source:cvelist:source_dates:source-dates:recordSource modified
Aug 15, 2026
Evidence: source:cvelist:source_dates:source-dates:recordFirst seen by HOL
Aug 15, 2026
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: bpf: Tighten cgroup storage cookie checks for prog arrays The fix in commit abad3d0bad72 ("bpf: Fix oob access in cgroup local storage") is still incomplete. The prog-array compatibility check treats a program with no cgroup storage as compatible with any stored storage cookie. This allows a storage-less program to bridge a tail call chain between an entry program and a storage-using callee even though cgroup local storage at runtime still follows the caller's context, that is, A -> B(no storage) -> C(storage) path. Requiring exact cookie equality would break the legitimate case of a storage-less leaf program being tail called from a storage-using one. Instead, only accept a zero storage cookie if the program cannot perform tail calls itself. This keeps A -> B(no storage) working while rejecting the A -> B(no storage) -> C(storage) bridge.
Quoted source text, attributed separately from HOL analysis.
A CVSS score is not reported in the current record. The current sources do not mark it as known exploited. Treat this as a source-backed prioritization signal, not a statement about your environment.
Analysis status
Analysis pending evidence review
Factual feed record only; HOL analysis is not approved for indexing. Read the methodology.
The current feed maps Linux/Linux (generic), Linux/Linux (generic). Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.
| Package | Affected range | Fixed version |
|---|---|---|
| Linux/Linuxgeneric | >=c1c74584b9b4043c52e41fec415226e582d266a3 <87177497cca90bf4fcfb759eb898560eb5b46a10 || >=66da7cee78590259b400e51a70622ccd41da7bb2 <1c762d28698483ce7c372091f34d86e4d4828652 || >=7acfa07c585e3d7a64654d38f0a5c762877d0b9b <eb73056ce2a6f101ddd3bdba89af6b24ebffff85 || >=41688d1fc5d163a6c2c0e95c0419e2cb31a44648 <9ca06849c4239aa2d580c54651f8588c51cb398b || >=abad3d0bad72a52137e0c350c59542d75ae4f513 <46fbafe3d2d569d828e8d24a7dbe1659f63685cf || >=abad3d0bad72a52137e0c350c59542d75ae4f513 <cb22dc79528eb26a46d346c3118dbd6b14c70609 || >=abad3d0bad72a52137e0c350c59542d75ae4f513 <10627ddc0167aab5c1c390a10ef461e9937aba08 || 19341d5c59e8c7e8528e40f8663e99d67810473c || >=5.15.192 <5.15.212 || >=6.1.151 <6.1.178 || >=6.6.105 <6.6.145 || >=6.12.46 <6.12.97 || >=6.16.1 <6.17 | 87177497cca90bf4fcfb759eb898560eb5b46a10, 1c762d28698483ce7c372091f34d86e4d4828652, eb73056ce2a6f101ddd3bdba89af6b24ebffff85, 9ca06849c4239aa2d580c54651f8588c51cb398b, 46fbafe3d2d569d828e8d24a7dbe1659f63685cf, cb22dc79528eb26a46d346c3118dbd6b14c70609, 10627ddc0167aab5c1c390a10ef461e9937aba08, 5.15.212, 6.1.178, 6.6.145, 6.12.97, 6.17 |
| Linux/Linuxgeneric | 6.17 | Not reported |
Published upstream
Aug 15, 2026
Evidence: source:cvelist:source_dates:source-dates:recordSource modified
Aug 15, 2026
Evidence: source:cvelist:source_dates:source-dates:recordFirst seen by HOL
Aug 15, 2026
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: bpf: Tighten cgroup storage cookie checks for prog arrays The fix in commit abad3d0bad72 ("bpf: Fix oob access in cgroup local storage") is still incomplete. The prog-array compatibility check treats a program with no cgroup storage as compatible with any stored storage cookie. This allows a storage-less program to bridge a tail call chain between an entry program and a storage-using callee even though cgroup local storage at runtime still follows the caller's context, that is, A -> B(no storage) -> C(storage) path. Requiring exact cookie equality would break the legitimate case of a storage-less leaf program being tail called from a storage-using one. Instead, only accept a zero storage cookie if the program cannot perform tail calls itself. This keeps A -> B(no storage) working while rejecting the A -> B(no storage) -> C(storage) bridge.
Quoted source text, attributed separately from HOL analysis.